You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Oct 6, 2023. It is now read-only.
Import Collections package via the package manager (tick show preview packages)
Clash!
Details
Unity has an internal Netwonsoft JSON package, which is used by com.unity.test-framework.performance. Meanwhile, Unity Collections depend on that performance testing framework package, and hence will use the internal Newtonsoft JSON. It is impossible to decouple those, therefore it is not possible to use advanced DOTS collections with this repo in the same project.
As Unity has it's own Newtonsoft JSON package, they for sure will use this in the future. Is it possible to change/rename the dlls in this repo so they don't clash with the Unity's own Newtonsoft JSON package?
Edit by @jilleJr: If you stumble upon this issue, please see @kjungyoun's solution at the bottom of this issue thread: #86 (comment)
Expected behavior
No clashing DLLs
Actual behavior
Error caused by 2 same DLLs. One coming from this package and the other from Unity's internal Newtonsoft JSON package.
Steps to reproduce
jillejr.newtonsoft.json-for-unityvia UPMDetails
Unity has an internal Netwonsoft JSON package, which is used by com.unity.test-framework.performance. Meanwhile, Unity Collections depend on that performance testing framework package, and hence will use the internal Newtonsoft JSON. It is impossible to decouple those, therefore it is not possible to use advanced DOTS collections with this repo in the same project.
As Unity has it's own Newtonsoft JSON package, they for sure will use this in the future. Is it possible to change/rename the dlls in this repo so they don't clash with the Unity's own Newtonsoft JSON package?
Edit by @jilleJr: If you stumble upon this issue, please see @kjungyoun's solution at the bottom of this issue thread: #86 (comment)