0000352: Record of events in a given turn is incomplete

(0000688)
brad (administrator)
2003-07-13 11:20

Yes, this has been a problem in RB for a long time. Your solution is definitely the way I would fix this, I just haven't ever gotten around to it.

Unfortunately switching from non-array to arrays variables is more involved than it sounds, so this probably will not get fixed in a small bug-fix release.

(0000692)
MrManganese (reporter)
2003-07-14 00:12

Does that mean that it won't be fixed in version 1.4?

(0000697)
brad (administrator)
2003-07-18 23:29

Hard to say, but it won't be fixed in the next few releases. These will just be to fix non-design oriented bugs.

(0000721)
ZeroOne (reporter)
2003-07-25 14:38

If several pings (or other events) take place at the same turn, which one of them gets through then?

(0000722)
brad (administrator)
2003-07-25 21:20

The last one

(0000766)
brad (administrator)
2004-05-17 15:20

I may work on this for the next text version, RB 1.5.02. These are the variables that need to be arrays

_cldbearing, _cldenergy, _cldheading, _cldid, _cldteamid, _pingbearing, _pingheading, _pingfriendly

It would be nice to change the _ping and various _cld trigger variables to contain the number of occurrences rather than just true/false as they do today. This may take some testing however because it could break robots that check for "_ping == true".

If that breaks too many robots, alternatives are to make robots check the sizes of the arrays to determine the number of occurrence or to add a totally new variable.

(0000776)
ZeroOne (reporter)
2004-07-12 16:15

---
brad wrote:
It would be nice to change the _ping and various _cld trigger variables to contain the number of occurrences rather than just true/false as they do today. This may take some testing however because it could break robots that check for "_ping == true".
---

Isn't it like this:
"if( _ping )" == "if( _ping == _true )" == "if( _ping != 0 )"
? Then changing the old system would only break the bots that have "if( _ping == 1 )".

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2004-04-21 23:00	brad	Relationship added	has duplicate 0000365
2004-05-17 15:20	brad	Note Added: 0000766
2004-05-17 15:21	brad	Assigned To	=> brad
2004-05-17 15:21	brad	Status	acknowledged => assigned
2004-07-12 16:15	ZeroOne	Note Added: 0000776
2004-11-15 17:35	brad	Status	assigned => acknowledged

Notes
(0000688) brad (administrator) 2003-07-13 11:20	Yes, this has been a problem in RB for a long time. Your solution is definitely the way I would fix this, I just haven't ever gotten around to it. Unfortunately switching from non-array to arrays variables is more involved than it sounds, so this probably will not get fixed in a small bug-fix release.

(0000692) MrManganese (reporter) 2003-07-14 00:12	Does that mean that it won't be fixed in version 1.4?

(0000697) brad (administrator) 2003-07-18 23:29	Hard to say, but it won't be fixed in the next few releases. These will just be to fix non-design oriented bugs.

(0000721) ZeroOne (reporter) 2003-07-25 14:38	If several pings (or other events) take place at the same turn, which one of them gets through then?

(0000722) brad (administrator) 2003-07-25 21:20	The last one

(0000766) brad (administrator) 2004-05-17 15:20	I may work on this for the next text version, RB 1.5.02. These are the variables that need to be arrays _cldbearing, _cldenergy, _cldheading, _cldid, _cldteamid, _pingbearing, _pingheading, _pingfriendly It would be nice to change the _ping and various _cld trigger variables to contain the number of occurrences rather than just true/false as they do today. This may take some testing however because it could break robots that check for "_ping == true". If that breaks too many robots, alternatives are to make robots check the sizes of the arrays to determine the number of occurrence or to add a totally new variable.

(0000776) ZeroOne (reporter) 2004-07-12 16:15	--- brad wrote: It would be nice to change the _ping and various _cld trigger variables to contain the number of occurrences rather than just true/false as they do today. This may take some testing however because it could break robots that check for "_ping == true". --- Isn't it like this: "if( _ping )" == "if( _ping == _true )" == "if( _ping != 0 )" ? Then changing the old system would only break the bots that have "if( _ping == 1 )".