On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 09:20:04 +0200
Michael Vehrs wrote:
> I'll have a look at that. And I think that all getName/getLabel code
> should be moved to Messages if possible.
Messages is a good place. The only real alternative I see is to try to
have a common "public StringTemplate getLabel()" metho
On 18.08.2013 03:37, Michael T. Pope wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 14:42:28 +0200
> Michael Vehrs wrote:
>
>> It probably doesn't matter, as long as we ensure that setRole() or its
>> successor is called during initialisation.
>>
> AFAICT role is either read directly or fixed with setRole
On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 14:42:28 +0200
Michael Vehrs wrote:
> It probably doesn't matter, as long as we ensure that setRole() or its
> successor is called during initialisation.
AFAICT role is either read directly or fixed with setRole() in all the Unit
initialization paths, so I think you are right
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 17:39:37 +0200
Michael Vehrs wrote:
> Alright. Let's get rid of them. I suggest we split the work along
> packages. A quick grep shows that there are about 150 call sites, about
> half of them in the model package. Shall I tackle the model?
Go for it. I only had a brief loo
On 13.08.2013 12:02, Michael T. Pope wrote:
> How should we handle backward compatibility for the roles?
> Specifications in saved games from<= 0.10.5 will not have a
> section.>= 0.10.6 have a roles section with two bugs: omitted
> model.role.default and model.role.scout does not include the
> cap
On 15.08.2013 10:40, Michael T. Pope wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 15:54:29 +0200
> Michael Vehrs wrote:
>
>> Update: I have fixed all test failures except for six that occur only
>> when running all tests, but not when running the test suite
>> individually. I conclude that some tests must be
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 15:54:29 +0200
Michael Vehrs wrote:
> Update: I have fixed all test failures except for six that occur only
> when running all tests, but not when running the test suite
> individually. I conclude that some tests must be messing around with the
> specification, causing the sta
How should we handle backward compatibility for the roles?
Specifications in saved games from <= 0.10.5 will not have a
section. >= 0.10.6 have a roles section with two bugs: omitted
model.role.default and model.role.scout does not include the
captureUnits ability. I can not think of anything be
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 15:54:29 +0200
Michael Vehrs wrote:
> Done. I hope my lack of git-fu hasn't caused any regressions.
I had time today for a quick look at the first test fail (the second probably
has the same cause) and traced it as far as Unit.getLandMoveType() which does
a lot of "if (getRole
On 11.08.2013 12:59, Michael T. Pope wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:30:20 +0200
> Michael Vehrs wrote:
>
>> Update: I have fixed all test failures except for six that occur only
>> when running all tests, but not when running the test suite
>> individually. I conclude that some tests must be
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 12:30:20 +0200
Michael Vehrs wrote:
> Update: I have fixed all test failures except for six that occur only
> when running all tests, but not when running the test suite
> individually. I conclude that some tests must be messing around with the
> specification, causing the
On 11.08.2013 09:13, Michael Vehrs wrote:
> On 10.08.2013 12:32, Michael T. Pope wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 11:39:40 +0200
>> Michael Vehrs wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Excellent. The change role message is, of course, an essential part of
>>> switching to a role model.
>>>
>>>
>> No w
On 10.08.2013 12:32, Michael T. Pope wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 11:39:40 +0200
> Michael Vehrs wrote:
>
>> Excellent. The change role message is, of course, an essential part of
>> switching to a role model.
>>
> No worries. What is your preferred sequence here? I am busy chipping
>
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 11:39:40 +0200
Michael Vehrs wrote:
> Excellent. The change role message is, of course, an essential part of
> switching to a role model.
No worries. What is your preferred sequence here? I am busy chipping
away at the PlayerExploredTile problems again ATM, but I can probab
On 10.08.2013 11:23, Michael T. Pope wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:35:32 +0200
> Michael Vehrs wrote:
>
>> Recently, I attempted replacing the current equipment-based model with a
>> role-based model. The required changes are pervasive and are certain to
>> introduce any number of bugs. Ther
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:35:32 +0200
Michael Vehrs wrote:
> Recently, I attempted replacing the current equipment-based model with a
> role-based model. The required changes are pervasive and are certain to
> introduce any number of bugs. Therefore, I propose a gradual migration.
> As a first ste
16 matches
Mail list logo