Search Issue Tracker
Fixed in 5.2.0
Votes
0
Found in
5.0.1p3
Issue ID
694683
Regression
No
AssetDatabase.GetAssetPathsFromAssetBundle Only Returns Assets Explicitly Included in the AssetBundle
Reproduction steps:
1. Open attached project "AssetBundlePaths"
2. From the editor menu select AssetBundles -> Dependencies
3. This will log AssetDatabase.GetAssetPathsFromAssetBundle for each AssetBundle in the project
4. Notice that only the folder ("Editor Default Resources") which is assigned to an AssetBundle is logged.
Assets inside this folder ("Cube" and "Sphere"), which will be included in the AssetBundle are not logged.
Comments (1)
Add comment
All about bugs
View bugs we have successfully reproduced, and vote for the bugs you want to see fixed most urgently.
Latest issues
- Mono Windows Builds don't produce full log callstacks when generating logs
- AssetBundles fail to load when running in Built Players for Mobile Devices
- UI elements with text gets bigger and grey when Player window is moved to another screen with different resolution
- System name accepts multiline text but crops it on confirmation, duplicates input, and shrinks the field when empty
- UI element scale and position are wrong in project build when DRS is changed with HDR and Software Dynamic Resolution enabled
sao
Sep 23, 2015 12:14
This "Fix" actually messed up our AssetBundle pipeline completely.
It happens namely very often that someone from the team assigns a folder to an AssetBundle by mistake and previously it wasn't a big issue, the folder was detected during an automated build and discarded.
Now, because of just one folder added to an AssetBundle by mistake we have hundreds of textures, materials and other files added in AssetBundle without purpose and even no chance to detect if it's because of a folder, because surprisingly the folder itself isn't listed in AssetDatabase.GetAssetPathsFromAssetBundle anymore!
Previous explicit AssetBundle marking makes definitely much more sense and isn't misleading or time consuming.
Moreover changing the API (instead of adding a new method for the requested feature) was a very bad move!