This makes it easier to spot syntax errors when editing the
class reference. The schema is referenced locally so validation
can still work offline.
Each class XML's schema conformance is also checked on GitHub Actions.
- Back to 1-based layer names to make it clearer in editor UI
- Layer bit accessors are renamed to layer value and 1-based too
- Uniform errors and documentation in render and physics
- Fix a few remaining collision_layer used in place of collision_mask
For the time being we don't support writing a description for those, preferring
having all details in the method's description.
Using self-closing tags saves half the lines, and prevents contributors from
thinking that they should write the argument or return documentation there.
We already removed it from the online docs with #35132.
Currently it can only be "Built-In Types" (Variant types) or "Core"
(everything else), which is of limited use.
We might also want to consider dropping it from `ClassDB` altogether
in Godot 4.0.
- Document a few more properties and methods
- Add more information to many classes
- Fix lots of typos and gramar mistakes
- Use [code] tags for parameters consistently
- Use [b] and [i] tags consistently
- Put "Warning:" and "Note:" on their own line to be more visible,
and make them always bold
- Tweak formatting in code examples to be more readable
- Use double quotes consistently
- Add more links to third-party technologies
In many of the XML files it had been noted that when the documentation
refers to a return value, both "Return" and "Returns" are used. This
has now been fixed to only say "Returns".
Fixes#28867
The point is that `RayCast`s are checked against objects' `collision_layer`(s), but they themselves are considered no to _belong_ to any layer. Therefore, the correct name for their property is `collision_mask`, rather than `collision_layer`.
Only renaming is needed since the behavior was already the right one, only that it wasn't matching what users would expect from the name and description of the property.
Fixes#7589, where it's also discussed.
