[x3d-public] bug report X3dToJson.xslt stylesheet. Handling of SFNode as parameter to Proto

[John Carlson]

I take that back.  Here’s what I’d like to do…I’d like -children to support both an object (SFNode) and an array (MFNode), so syntax like this
is acceptable:

         { "ProtoInstance":
            {
              "@name":"twentyseven",
              "fieldValue": [
                {
                  "@name":"ttranslation",
                  "@value":[0,0,0]
                },
                {
                  "@name":"myShape",
                  "-children": {
                    "Box": {
                      "@size":[1,1,1]
                    }
                  }
                }
              ]
            }
          }


Thus, if you have an SFNode, it will will generate syntax like the above for -children, and if you have an MFNode, the stylesheet will generate an array for -children.  And then the schema will either accept an array or an object.

Is this possible?  I will test to see if the stylesheet is already fixed.

John
> On Apr 16, 2016, at 10:28 PM, John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I have verified that using -children solves my problem (at least with schema!).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John
>> On Apr 3, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Don Brutzman <brutzman at nps.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Apologies for delayed reply.
>> 
>> Here is the rule that was decided as most straightforward and consistent (currently last bullet under Completed Work):
>> 
>> http://www.web3d.org/x3d/stylesheets/X3dToJson.html#Issues
>> 
>> * field and fieldValue statements containing SFNode/MFNode content use the -children key.
>> 
>> Your scene passes all X3D Validator tests (good job there) and I think the relevant excerpts that you are referring to are
>> 
>> =================================================================
>> ...
>> <ProtoDeclare name='twentyseven'>
>> <ProtoInterface>
>> 	<field accessType='inputOutput' name='ttranslation' type='SFVec3f' value='0.0 0.0 0.0'/>
>> 	<field accessType='inputOutput' name='myShape' type='SFNode'>
>> 	  <Sphere/>
>> 	</field>
>> </ProtoInterface>
>> <ProtoBody>
>> 	<Transform translation='0 0 0'>
>> 	  <IS>
>> 		<connect nodeField='translation' protoField='ttranslation'/>
>> 	  </IS>
>> 	  <ProtoInstance name='nine'>
>> 		<fieldValue name='ztranslation' value='0 0 0'/>
>> 		<IS>
>> 		  <connect nodeField='myShape' protoField='myShape'/>
>> 		</IS>
>> 	  </ProtoInstance>
>> 	  <ProtoInstance name='nine'>
>> 		<fieldValue name='ztranslation' value='0 0 2'/>
>> 		<IS>
>> 		  <connect nodeField='myShape' protoField='myShape'/>
>> 		</IS>
>> 	  </ProtoInstance>
>> 	  <ProtoInstance name='nine'>
>> 		<fieldValue name='ztranslation' value='0 0 -2'/>
>> 		<IS>
>> 		  <connect nodeField='myShape' protoField='myShape'/>
>> 		</IS>
>> 	  </ProtoInstance>
>> 	</Transform>
>> </ProtoBody>
>> </ProtoDeclare>
>> <ProtoInstance name='twentyseven'>
>> <fieldValue name='ttranslation' value='0 0 0'/>
>> <fieldValue name='myShape'>
>> 	<Box size='1 1 1'/>
>> </fieldValue>
>> </ProtoInstance>
>> =================================================================
>> 
>> So the corresponding conversion of the ProtoInstance to JSON would be
>> 
>> { "ProtoInstance":
>> {
>> 	"@name":"twentyseven",
>> 	"fieldValue": [
>> 	  {
>> 		"@name":"ttranslation",
>> 		"@value":[0,0,0]
>> 	  },
>> 	  {
>> 		"@name":"myShape",
>> 		"-children":[
>> 		  { "Box":
>> 			{
>> 			  "@size":[1,1,1]
>> 			}
>> 		  }
>> 		]
>> 	  }
>> 	]
>> }
>> }
>> 
>> This JSON excerpt above matches the ProtoInstance in "rubikOnFireFlawed.json" file you sent a week ago.
>> 
>> Full result from X3dToJson.xslt stylesheet attached, passes jslint and also passes Roy's X3D JSON Schema validation.
>> 
>> Incidentally, nested prototypes are certainly allowed by X3D Specification but the great majority of my testing to date has not been testing nesting.
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/25/2016 11:35 PM, John Carlson wrote:
>>> So it actually caught it after my PrototypeExpander ran on it.  So there may be a bug with how my PrototypeExpander handles -children which are SFNodes (actually they are MFNodes (arrays) in the JSON code, so I think the JSON is wrong).  You guys may have discussed this, or something like it, and I was ignorant at the time.
>>> 
>>> John
>>>> On Mar 26, 2016, at 2:28 AM, John Carlson <yottzumm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> If you pass an SFNode to a Proto, it is treated as an MFNode and given -children, and not -value or -child.  This can create -geometry nodes which are arrays instead of objects.  Here are an X3D example, the converted JSON, and how the JSON should appear (hand edited).  I did not pick -value or -child because I forgot what we chose.  I could probably fix this another way, but i think -children is misleading when it’s an SFNode.<rubikOnFire.json><rubikOnFire.x3d><rubikOnFireFixed.json>You may use my X3D file in your X3D resources examples if you wish.  rubikOnFire.json  does not pass schema. If there’s a problem with my X3D file, then we should fix QA, because it passed the latest X3D-Edit tests. (Perhaps there should be a warning?).  If there is a problem with my X3D file, then JSON should not be produced.
>>>> 
>>>> So take your pick, fix the stylesheet, or find an error in my X3D file.   Good luck with both.
>>>> 
>>>> There’s likely more bugs to report.  This is just the first one.  Good catch Roy!
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> John
>> 
>> all the best, Don
>> -- 
>> Don Brutzman  Naval Postgraduate School, Code USW/Br       brutzman at nps.edu
>> Watkins 270,  MOVES Institute, Monterey CA 93943-5000 USA   +1.831.656.2149
>> X3D graphics, virtual worlds, navy robotics http://faculty.nps.edu/brutzman
>> <rubikOnFire.json>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20160416/62c3f838/attachment-0001.html>