Notes |
(0000019)
jpeg (manager)
2009-11-22 12:38
|
Yes, what you want is TILEG_TODO. There should even be some examples in tileidx_spell().
Thanks for taking this up, Matthew! |
|
(0000021)
jpeg (manager)
2009-11-22 13:13
|
Assigning to you as you're apparently already working on this. (And so I can test Mantis some more. :))
Just add the new spells into the switch block (makes it easier to see what's still missing than using default) and return TILEG_TODO.
Again, thanks! |
|
(0000023)
Matthew Cline (developer)
2009-11-22 13:41
|
Wouldn't it be better to change rltiles/tool/tile_list_processor.cc so that that the various functions in tiledef-*.cc will return the appropriate TODO tile (instead of asserting), rather than changing the various tileidx_foo() functions? Then no one will have to remember to insert placeholders into tileidx_foo() to prevent assertions. |
|
(0000024)
jpeg (manager)
2009-11-22 22:42
|
Do you mean that already during compilation the png files should be filled with TODO tiles for all spells/monsters/... not covered elsewhere? (Offhand, I've no idea how to do that, but I guess that the tiledef-unrand files go in the right direction. Unfortunately, those are created by a perl skript rather than the tiles tools, precisely because I couldn't work out how to make that work...)
As a quick solution, we could add the "default: return TODO" to all tileidx methods after all.
What I'd really like is if during Tiles compilation (or rather creation of the png files) there was a warning for all missing tiles. You are completely right that we should not use ASSERTs for this purpose. |
|
(0000027)
Matthew Cline (developer)
2009-11-23 02:08
|
Turns out the assertions where caused by tileidx_spell() returning TILE_ERROR instead of TILEG_ERROR. I fixed that, and also added TODO placeholders for the new spells.
Hmmm, there doesn't seem to be any "resolution" field: fixed vs invalid vs duplicate, etc. |
|
(0000028)
Matthew Cline (developer)
2009-11-23 02:10
|
Oh, here's how you close a bug. |
|