It must now return two dictionaries: One for the profiles that have been completely loaded and one for the profiles that are only metadata. We could probably improve on these a little bit, since all of these (except the material model) will now load all available quality profiles. I'll see if it is necessary to optimise that.
Contributes to issue CURA-4243.
in the GCode and then the right flavor handler is responsible for
reading the code. At this moment just the Griffin and RepRap flavors are
taken into account.
My IDE shows the str(inst) representation of an object when indicating what value is in there. This makes it easier to find stuff. It'll also make debug prints more clear than the default <XmlMaterialProfile.XmlMaterialProfile.XmlMaterialProfile object at 0x12345678> stuff of Python.
Contributes to issue CURA-4243.
Parent settings are not used by the engine. Or they shouldn't be, because the parent settings are disabled by the front-end when all of their child settings are overwritten. Then you'd have a parent setting that is used by the engine but you can't modify it. Also, the command-line slicing doesn't load parent settings since it can't parse categories and such.
Removed the "not supported" materials. So all the other material quality profiles, BVOH, global, Innoflex60, PET, PLA and PVA are supported by our printer. In Cura 3.1 beta only PLA is supported.
Parent settings are not used by the engine. Or they shouldn't be, because the parent settings are disabled by the front-end when all of their child settings are overwritten. Then you'd have a parent setting that is used by the engine but you can't modify it. Also, the command-line slicing doesn't load parent settings since it can't parse categories and such.
This is done a bit inconsistently because it's unclear whether metadata should be considered as one word or two. I'd say it is one word, not 'meta data', but people seem to disagree.
Contributes to issue CURA-4243.
This is because ContainerRegistry.saveAll has been removed. That function was only used by this test. I don't think it's worth keeping this unit test for the effort. It's only for code that's passed through in the version upgrade from 2.4 to 2.5 anyway.
Contributes to issue CURA-4243.
