tanks | Tanks battle game prototype , for nodejs learning purposes | Game Engine library

As guessed you are using the wrong name.

Note that the name of the property is Fill but that's only the display name!

What you want to use in code is what is configured as Reference! See Shader Properties

Reference Name: The internal name used for the property inside the shader

and further

NOTE: If you overwrite the Reference Name parameter be aware of the following conditions:

• If your Reference Name does not begin with an underscore, one will be automatically appended.
• If your Reference Name contains any characters which are unsupported in HLSL they will be removed.
• You can revert to the default Reference Name by right clicking on it and selecting Reset Reference

Currently yours is

• select : "
• select All : Ctrl+Shift+L
• Cursor/Arrow-Right
• Select Till End: Shift+End
• Reduce selection: Cursor/Arrow-Left Cursor/Arrow-Left

If the bounding boxes are relative, you don't need to change them because 0.2 of the old height is the same as 0.2 of the new height and so on.

You're confusing the parameters for fillRect - it's fillRect(x, y, width, height) not fillRect(width, height, x, y). Also, you do not need to instantiate the parent twice. Just create a Tank object.

In Your PanzerArmy.toString() you call Army.toString(String), which in turn calls toString(). You might expect Army.toString() to be executed here, but since you overrode it in PanzerArmy (and the current object is of type PanzerArmy) it will call PanzerArmy.toString(). .. which will call Army.toString(String) and start the whole jazz again, in a never ending recursion. Eventually the JDK decides that it's got enough of this and bails.

A better solution would be to make the toString() in Army abstract and only implement toString(String).

Alternatively you could use something like getClass().getSimpleName() to get the short name of the current class and immediately use that instead of having to tweak toString() for each subclass.

You can change the checkX methods to return a boolean (true for success, false for failure), and move the error codes to the method that calls them (doSomething()):

Try this.

We convert the 'DATE' column to Date class (dmy - from lubridate), arrange the rows by 'IDENT' and 'DATE', grouped by 'IDENT', recode the 'READ' values to 'READ_PRIOR' and 'POST_READ' with case_when based on the presence of 'ERROR', remove the 'IDENT' groups that have no 'ERROR' value in 'TYPE', reshape to 'wide' format with pivot_wider and fill the values in 'POST_READ' with non-NA adjacent values for each 'IDENT'

Your logic seems to make sense at first glance. But let's examine why this is a bad idea.

JSX is a special syntax that must be transpiled down to the lowest common demoninator to be understood in the browser, or by Nodejs. This is what bundlers do, and as you mentioned, anyone working with react in a node environment is almost certainly using a bundler to do this.

However, there are any number of wierd syntaxes that people may use in their code. When a bundler imports code from a node_module, if the code in those modules is not already transpiled, the bundler would need to transpile them as well. Considering un-transpiled modules may be in any number of strange syntaxes, each module would need its own transpilation instructions (think babel configuration). Having unique transpilation configurations for every node_module would be very unwieldy, not to mention having to transpile each node_module, potentially in a different way, would be bad for performance.

The generally accepted best practice for solve this problem is to simply build your package using a bunder which boils the code down to the lowest common denominator. This enables your package-user's bundler to just bring in the code in a node_module "as is".

While its probably possible to come up with some crazy babe/webpack/rollup instructions to custom-interperet your module as JSX, do you really want your library users to have to do that? Especially in the case of people using create-react-app, customizing the babel config of CRA is not natively supported, which means they will need to take extra-steps to get your library to work. Additionally, webpack defaults to excluding node_modules from js transpilations for obvious performance reasons, and CRA follows this convention. When publishing libraries, you want them to be universally useable as easy as possible to consume.

Transpiling, tweaking, and optimizing code is best left to the person who wrote it, which in the case of a react component library you're trying to publish, is you.