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

❌ Patch coverage is 94.11765% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 78.82%. Comparing base (5e981a7) to head (c62665f).
⚠️ Report is 117 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...rc/mercury_engine_data_structures/formats/bmsld.py	94.11%	6 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #258      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   77.58%   78.82%   +1.23%     
==========================================
  Files          78       80       +2     
  Lines        4011     4330     +319     
==========================================
+ Hits         3112     3413     +301     
- Misses        899      917      +18     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[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

[dyceron]

Is this PR in a mergeable state or does it still need to be fixed?