Collectible Card Game Headquarters

Braids wrote:The build number reported in forge-1.1.2-jar-with-dependencies.jar's MANIFEST.MF file says the build ID is 9793 instead of 9812.

I downloaded that file from cardforge.org and it had the correct revision #. Actually it was later 9819 since Chris and I had some issues with svn authentication. Are you looking at Chris's earlier upload?

lazylockie wrote:so this Mantis system allows non-crash bug reports?

yes. see the wiki here for bugs and here for features.

jendave wrote:

Braids wrote:The build number reported in forge-1.1.2-jar-with-dependencies.jar's MANIFEST.MF file says the build ID is 9793 instead of 9812.

I downloaded that file from cardforge.org and it had the correct revision #. Actually it was later 9819 since Chris and I had some issues with svn authentication. Are you looking at Chris's earlier upload?

yes, i was. was mediafire updated? i have 9819 now.

Braids wrote:

jendave wrote:

Braids wrote:The build number reported in forge-1.1.2-jar-with-dependencies.jar's MANIFEST.MF file says the build ID is 9793 instead of 9812.

I downloaded that file from cardforge.org and it had the correct revision #. Actually it was later 9819 since Chris and I had some issues with svn authentication. Are you looking at Chris's earlier upload?

yes, i was. was mediafire updated? i have 9819 now.

`
The MediaFire and the cardforge archives both should be based on rev 9814.

Chris H. wrote:

Braids wrote:yes, i was. was mediafire updated? i have 9819 now.

`
The MediaFire and the cardforge archives both should be based on rev 9814.

. . . then why does it say 9819?

Braids wrote:

Chris H. wrote:

Braids wrote:yes, i was. was mediafire updated? i have 9819 now.

`
The MediaFire and the cardforge archives both should be based on rev 9814.

. . . then why does it say 9819?

`
My local copy was updated to rev 9814 when I executed the Maven script to build and release. If the b & r is successful then we see the several commits + logs to the SVN.

9817 to 9819 only changes the pom file from what I can tell. I look at this as a nice message to the other devs that the bi-weekly beta release is now done and the rest of you can go ahead and make your commits without worry or inteference.

Dave will have a more technical explanation.

Chris H. wrote:

Braids wrote:

Chris H. wrote:The MediaFire and the cardforge archives both should be based on rev 9814.

. . . then why does it say 9819?

`
My local copy was updated to rev 9814 when I executed the Maven script to build and release. If the b & r is successful then we see the several commits + logs to the SVN.

9817 to 9819 only changes the pom file from what I can tell. I look at this as a nice message to the other devs that the bi-weekly beta release is now done and the rest of you can go ahead and make your commits without worry or inteference.

Dave will have a more technical explanation.

ok, so the release process commits additional changes. that smells of self-modifying code.

Chris, how much trouble would it be for you to advertise the later rev number in this and future betas?

Braids wrote:ok, so the release process commits additional changes. that smells of self-modifying code.

`
The only change that I can see while I am doing this is to the pom.xml file. There are no other changes to the Head SVN project itself other than the pom.xml file. Oh, and the local target folder acts as a receptacle for the various files that are created. But I clean these out with a Maven command before I make my next commit.

The pom file needs to update the version number that is contained within the pom file so the next beta release will automatically have the next higher version number. This automation is a good thing.

Think of the pom file as nothing more than a glorified script file. It builds the forge jar and combines it with the other files and then creates the two archives. The pom file then uploads the archives plus the various reports which are created in this process.

Check out the http://svn.slightlymagic.net/websvn/ site and click on View Log. There is a nice pull down menu with an option labeled Elegant. Anyone who is interested should check it out.

Braids wrote:Chris, how much trouble would it be for you to advertise the later rev number in this and future betas?

`
Today was unique in that I had a ready to go local copy that was at rev 9814. We had a new submission at the next rev, 9815. I did not want to have to run set info script and modify the change.txt file to reflect this last moment submission. It was easier for me to leave these two new cards for the next beta.

We have had a few really busy Fridays in the past with many last moment submissions. I appreciate everyones hard work and effort. But I do need to get the beta out at some point.

@Chris: OK.

Razorgrass Screen, without augmentation, is able to block more than one creature. Bellowing Tanglewurm and Giant Spider were attacking. it blocked both. and died.

in case you hadn't noticed, i'm playing more Forge today than i have in weeks.

i have one Karakas in my deck. i used Goblin Charbelcher with 25 cards in my library. only one card was revealed, the Karakas. it should have gone to the bottom of my library, but i drew it the next turn.

edit: i think. don't Fireball me if you can't reproduce it

during Computer's EOT step, i tapped Matsu-Tribe Sniper targeting Plover Knights. Matsu-Tribe Sniper tapped, and Plover Knights received one point of damage. but Plover Knights were not tapped.

looking at res/cardsfolder/m/matsu_tribe_sniper.txt, line 7 (starting with T:) incorrectly lists its damage ability as applying to Combat Damage instead of Any Damage. i don't know how to fix this right now.

Braids wrote:during Computer's EOT step, i tapped Matsu-Tribe Sniper targeting Plover Knights. Matsu-Tribe Sniper tapped, and Plover Knights received one point of damage. but Plover Knights were not tapped.

looking at res/cardsfolder/m/matsu_tribe_sniper.txt, line 7 (starting with T:) incorrectly lists its damage ability as applying to Combat Damage instead of Any Damage. i don't know how to fix this right now.

Fixed in SVN. (Just removing the CombatDamage$ True parameter will do (and altering the description))

Braids wrote:in case you hadn't noticed, i'm playing more Forge today than i have in weeks.

Glad to see you enjoying some game time

this one is minor. my opponent cast Scourge of the Nobilis {SotN} on its Duergar Hedge-Mage {DHM}, {DHM's text is irrelevant. the fact that it is red is important, though.} technically, SotN confers its Firebreathing -like ability to the creature it enchants, so the text "RW: This creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn" should be added to the creature itself. i should see this when i hover over the DHM, yes? instead i'm guessing it acts like Firebreathing, which doesn't add text to its enchantee in this manner.

is this even important?