Added argument handling for ASCII export of assemblies to GLTF and STL

[jmwright]

The binary option for occ_impl.exporters.assembly.exportGLTF() was not getting passed through from the assembly.save() call. This PR fixes that and also adds the ascii option for STL export as well.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1418 (d33fbef) into master (f467ac9) will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head d33fbef differs from pull request most recent head 36bffa8. Consider uploading reports for the commit 36bffa8 to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1418      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.24%   94.27%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          28       28              
  Lines        5790     5799       +9     
  Branches      987      990       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits         5457     5467      +10     
  Misses        199      199              
+ Partials      134      133       -1     

Files	Coverage Δ
cadquery/assembly.py	96.76% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
cadquery/occ_impl/exporters/assembly.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[jmwright]

@lorenzncode @adam-urbanczyk Please take a look when you have time.

[lorenzncode]

Thanks @jmwright. Yes, IIRC there was a timing issue where the STL assembly export PR was created before but merged after STL binary support was added.

I would suggest not to add both binary and ascii keywords.

# ?
assy.save("out.stl", binary=True, ascii=True)

Can glTF export instead be enhanced to handle the format automatically based on extension?

I expect this to export to JSON.:

assy.save("out.gltf")

Expect binary glTF instead of error:

assy.save("out.glb")

[jmwright]

@lorenzncode I made that change, but do you think that level of implicit behavior will be confusing for users? I added a note to the import/export documentation, which apparently had not been updated yet to show that we support GLTF export.

[lorenzncode]

I made that change, but do you think that level of implicit behavior will be confusing for users?

@jmwright No, not at all! I've opened issue #1419. Other tools handle the glTF format automatically by file extension as well. The format is encoded in the file extension explicitly already by convention.

[adam-urbanczyk]

LGTM, you might want to fix coverage though.

[jmwright]

codecov/patch keeps failing, but it does not seem like CodeCov is showing me the correct information when I click through to its report. What am I missing?

[jmwright]

I finally was able to fix CodeCov.

@lorenzncode I think I have all of your suggestions implemented.

[lorenzncode]

Thanks @jmwright ! I tested the branch and did not find any other issues.

[lorenzncode]

@adam-urbanczyk, @jmwright Is there a policy against git sqaush? If not, perhaps squash might be applied more on merge.

For example, I like black, but maybe squash commits such as black fixes, codecov tests, etc.:

$ git log | grep -i black | wc
     89     460    3151

[jmwright]

@lorenzncode squash is good, I just always forget to do it.

[adam-urbanczyk]

I always squash when merging.