BMSLD Updates

[dyceron]

• Renames fields and updates formatting
• Moves functions from OSRR to MEDS
• Add enum for actor layers
• Add classes for editing position, rotation, and arguments

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 91.26214% with 9 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 77.82%. Comparing base (5e981a7) to head (2a2cac9).
Report is 8 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...rc/mercury_engine_data_structures/formats/bmsld.py	91.26%	9 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #258      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   77.58%   77.82%   +0.23%     
==========================================
  Files          78       79       +1     
  Lines        4011     4099      +88     
==========================================
+ Hits         3112     3190      +78     
- Misses        899      909      +10     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[dyceron]

Unsure if keeping reference[layer/actor] is worthwhile. It feels very verbose.

scenario.remove_entity({"layer": 9, "actor": "LE_GrappleDest_007"})
vs
scenario.remove_entity(9, "LE_GrappleDest_007")

[ThanatosGit]

Unsure if keeping reference[layer/actor] is worthwhile. It feels very verbose.

scenario.remove_entity({"layer": 9, "actor": "LE_GrappleDest_007"}) vs scenario.remove_entity(9, "LE_GrappleDest_007")

In this case the first variant is just an ugly way of providing two arguments as one argument to the method.

It only makes sense to me because it wouldn't require "unpacking" such things from an input json in the patcher. But as the schema validation guarantees that the keys exists in the dict from the input json, it is definitely better to unpack it in the patcher and use the second variant here because MEDS doesn't know anything about the schema.

[dyceron]

Unsure if keeping reference[layer/actor] is worthwhile. It feels very verbose.
scenario.remove_entity({"layer": 9, "actor": "LE_GrappleDest_007"}) vs scenario.remove_entity(9, "LE_GrappleDest_007")

In this case the first variant is just an ugly way of providing two arguments as one argument to the method.

It only makes sense to me because it wouldn't require "unpacking" such things from an input json in the patcher. But as the schema validation guarantees that the keys exists in the dict from the input json, it is definitely better to unpack it in the patcher and use the second variant here because MEDS doesn't know anything about the schema.

So I should use the less verbose version here then? Or are you saying keep this in OSRR, which probably shouldn't happen?

[ThanatosGit]

So I should use the less verbose version here then?

Yes

[duncathan]

I'm gonna finish preparing the Vec2/3/4 pr today which should help with this pr too

[duncathan]

let's improve some typing problems. start off like this:

ActorName: TypeAlias = str
ActorGroupName: TypeAlias = str

then adjust the signatures of your API functions to use these types instead of just str as appropriate. a lot of the functions currently have incorrect signatures, so double check all of them