Fixed [2.1.15] The curious case of the Level Header LUA. bitshift shitfit

[toaster]

Level headers with Lua-accessible level header parameters mess up when dealing with LUA.- prefixed lines, especially when the header continues beyond it. For each additional line you must add in four pointless characters to all following lines for the remainder of the level header. This problem also ends up stacking, leading to the ridiculous example below.

Bad header:

level BS
levelname = Bitshift Shitfit
skynum = BS
LUA.example1 = Bitshift
nextlevel = BS
typeoflevel = Coop
LUA.example2 = Shitfit
musicslot = BS

Error messages reported by bad header:

WARNING: Line 5: Level header 164: unknown word 'level'
WARNING: Line 6: Level header 164: unknown word 'oflevel'
WARNING: Line 7: Level header 164: unknown word 'example2'
WARNING: Line 8: Level header 164: unknown word 'cslot'

Good header:

level BS
levelname = Bitshift Shitfit
skynum = BS
LUA.example1 = Bitshift
I'mAnextlevel = BS
badPtypeoflevel = Coop
ersoLUA.example2 = Shitfit
nSoryInumusicslot = BS

No error messages produced from this version of the level header. Everything else is self-explanatory.

 

[Monster Iestyn]

Beep, fixed.

http://git.magicalgirl.moe/STJr/SRB2/commit/e297765df9c73a729819a0d8aec0420907c45351

 

[K.S.]

How about A, don't mark something as fixed until it's actually put in one of the correct branches, and B, check to make sure someone else hasn't already done the work?

https://github.com/STJr/SRB2/pull/44

Oh right, we currently have a hideously unworkable setup that enables this kind of shit to happen.

(By the way, don't just shift word back down. Reset it at the top, in case we do something else that also requires shifting word forwards.)

 

[fickleheart]

Oh right, we currently have a hideously unworkable setup that enables this kind of shit to happen.

No, you just posted your MR in the GitHub mirror instead of the repository everyone else on dev checks.

 

[K.S.]

GitHub is what we should be using in the first place if we're going down this route, for the purposes of user-friendliness and not being a complete ass to set up.

 

[Monster Iestyn]

...I wasn't even aware anyone still used GitHub anymore, welp. Didn't make sense to me that we still used both sites, considering it makes hosting the public source code on one redundant to the other.

 

[fickleheart]

GitHub is what we should be using in the first place if we're going down this route, for the purposes of user-friendliness and not being a complete ass to set up.

I have a chronic allergy to SSH keys and getting set up on GitLab took me five minutes. It seriously isn't that difficult to set up.

GitHub's only advantage is permeance. Yes, anyone who codes is signed up there, and convincing people to set up on our server is a bit of a lofty expectation. In exchange, the GitLab server is much less limited in terms of private repositories and etc, and means we aren't relying on an external service to hold our secrets.

But regardless of where you put your commits, you had three days from when you made the merge request to mark this topic as fixed yourself, instead of waiting for someone else to attempt a fix and then chewing them out for it. The lack of communication here rests solely on you.

 

[JTE]

Okay then, so when you fix something and it's still a merge request, we will link to the merge request here so everyone knows.

No problem. No big deal. Done.

There is no reason not to use GitHub for primary public development and keeping GitLab to "hold our secrets". It's fair enough, GitHub is a good service and trivially easy to use, the repositories are based on a root ancestor and kept closely synched, so it actually isn't any easier to use GitLab's public branch than it is to merge things in from GitHub.

But that is not a discussion for here anyway. Plz chew elswher, and respond to me on IRC or something.

 

[Monster Iestyn]

Inu's fix for this issue was merged into next a while back, do we consider this fixed now?