Re: Developing Bugs
r26560, @elcnesh, that fix is not good. It's a general LKI issue. The order should not be reversed. I think it's better to apply a fake Pump effect here.
High Quality Resources for Collectible Card Games and Home of the CCGHQ Team
https://www.slightlymagic.net/forum/
https://www.slightlymagic.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=5035
I know, but in this case the order really doesn't matter, functionally. But I agree the LKI issue should be fixed... But due to the current structure of looking for defined cards it's very hard. I'll have a look into it.swordshine wrote:r26560, @elcnesh, that fix is not good. It's a general LKI issue. The order should not be reversed.
Nope, the order is important when applying static effects. If a equipment has an ability "Equipped creature has Indestructible." and you destroy the equipment first, the original equipped creature can be destroyed. The LKI issue is complicated, but we can handle those two cards using a fake pump effect and remembering the original equipments attached to the targeted creature.elcnesh wrote:I know, but in this case the order really doesn't matter, functionally. But I agree the LKI issue should be fixed... But due to the current structure of looking for defined cards it's very hard. I'll have a look into it.
Here's a link to the comparison:elcnesh wrote:I think I may have found the source of the ConcurrentModificationExceptions... In r25449
Temporarily reverted. I didn't notice the release notes. Looks like we need a total rework of protection, so those hardcoded Flickering Ward can be scripted. IIRC, current structure of protection is also not good for the KeywordEnhancement project.elcnesh wrote:@swordshine, r26631: Spectra Ward should not not give protection from auras, since the creature is still protected from e.g. any colored auras players want to target at it, or aura abilities that target it.
Here is the list of hardcoded protection effects:swordshine wrote:Temporarily reverted. I didn't notice the release notes. Looks like we need a total rework of protection, so those hardcoded Flickering Ward can be scripted. IIRC, current structure of protection is also not good for the KeywordEnhancement project.
I was wondering why that catch for IndexOutOfBoundsException was there... Anyway, I think I understand what's going on now.elcnesh wrote:I think I may have found the source of the ConcurrentModificationExceptions... In r25449, the loop in getHiddenExtrinsicKeyword was changed from an index loop to an iteration, causing the while(true) and try...catch(IndexOutOfBoundsException) construction to no longer function. Changing the catch type to ConcurrentModificationException may very well solve it. (I'm not just doing that because I don't entirely understand what's going on, and maybe someone else does.)
for (String s : this.hiddenExtrinsicKeyword)for (String s : this.hiddenExtrinsicKeyword.clone())Just create a new post in the developers corner explaining a little intro of yourself and what your attempting to fix with the patch.Farnsworth wrote:I think I saw somewhere that new contributors are supposed to post patches of commits... is this true? And if so where?
Chris H. wrote:I updated to rev 27347 and I now get these two erros:
ClientProtocolJson cannot be resolved to a type NetClient.java /forge-net/src/main/java/forge/net/client line 33 Java Problem
The import forge.net.protocol.ClientProtocolJson cannot be resolved NetClient.java /forge-net/src/main/java/forge/net/client line 11 Java Problem