Welcome to the Builder Academy

Question Is the Github code considered stable?

More
03 Nov 2017 01:39 #7051 by srhuston
Greetings, programs!

I recently downloaded and started running tbamud, first with the packaged code but then when my son and I ran into the water drinking bug which was fixed in github I thought it might not be a bad idea to run that instead. Unfortunately after compiling I found all shops selling everything for 0 gold. I reverted back to the 3.68 code with the fix manually applied, and shops are working as expected again.

Looking at the diff between the two, I'm not sure I see what the problem is - the additions are bandaging, unfollow and I believe regroup, and then a changeset labeled to fix compiler warnings that does a lot of setting statics and some type casting. I did notice that some variables were cast to float before and are now cast to double in shop.c, and I wonder if the change in precision messed up the arithmetic. It's been a while since I've done any heavy lifting in C, so I figured I'd post the question and see if someone more familiar with the code would see the error rather than me spending a lot of time adding debug statements and stepping through gdb :D

Very long way of not only reporting what seems to be a bug but asking if the github codebase should be considered stable for use? My goal is to run a small mud for my son (9) and some friends of mine who used to mud, and so far we're having a lot of fun exploring and learning about it. I ran an ew-too so this is a bit new for me too...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Nov 2017 06:42 #7052 by thomas
Yes, it is supposed to be considered stable - and thanks for the bug report.

It is highly likely that the problem was introduced when fixing compiler warnings.
I'll have a look asap.

Welcome to the forums :)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Nov 2017 12:06 #7053 by wyld
I’ve changed the way the compiler issue was addressed, and shop item values now show as expected. Thanks for the bug report.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Nov 2017 12:42 #7054 by srhuston
Awesome, thanks! I see I was right about the location and cause of the bug, but also recognize it would have taken me a lot longer to remember how to fix it :D

I'm happy to help out where I can with things, but I'm much more of a hacker than a coder. Been a sysadmin for 17 or so years now, and though I started in computer science most of my coding has been "this thing is broken and I need it not to be", but not so much in terms of development unless it's in a scripting language to keep a system running.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Nov 2017 12:48 #7055 by wyld
Yep, you were absolutely right. The change in precision didn’t play nicely with how the pricing formula is written.

Feel free to bring up any additional issues or feature requests!
The following user(s) said Thank You: srhuston

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.186 seconds