Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PatrikLundell]

Is this a normal error in 47.04?

https://imgur.com/fKfFEI9

No. All such messages are indications of bugs. However, to fix bugs as they're discovered, I generally need to be able to replicate them, which means access to a save that causes it to appear, and a description of how to generate the message (i.e. what you tried to view when getting the message and how to get there [The name of the book and the view and potential filter used is probably enough in most cases]).

[Stiqy]

I just created the script as instructed. loaded up my fort and tried to run it with "librarian" the first time. Nothing happened except the red text.  I can share the save if it will help.

[PatrikLundell]

Thanks Stiqy.

The bug was caused by the script trying to index the first element in the empty list of books with interactions in them, which fails, of course. The bug was introduced with the latest change to the script. I've fixed the bug and uploaded the updated script to the link at the first page.

[Stiqy]

Thanks Stiqy.

The bug was caused by the script trying to index the first element in the empty list of books with interactions in them, which fails, of course. The bug was introduced with the latest change to the script. I've fixed the bug and uploaded the updated script to the link at the first page.

You rock.

[Leonidas]

The new Interactions view works perfectly. I suspected that I only had the one volume on life and death, but it's nice to be sure.

[axemangeorge]

Thanks for this awesome script!! It's so cool to peek under the hood and see the effects books can have on my oddly literate citizens!

I also really appreciate you not only making the script available, but THEN revising and bug-fixing till it works. Mad props.

[myk]

Is there any reason you haven't submitted this for inclusion in DFHack?

[PatrikLundell]

Yes...

The main problem with inclusion into DFHack is that bugs can't be fixed quickly after they've been discovered (or, rather, that even if the bugs are fixed the next day, DFHack won't have a release containing the corrected version the next day), but rather when DFHack has accumulated enough changes to warrant a new release. This means it can take months or years for a corrected version to reach those who encountered the bug in the first place.

Another, lesser, reason is that Github is disgusting to work with (I do when I have to, though, such as e.g. DFHack structure mapping).

These are the main reasons I don't submit scripts for inclusion into DFHack. They don't have to be compiled into it to work (as they're scripts), so the most compelling reason to include them simply doesn't exist.

However, I'm not opposed to others including the scripts I've created (which would also include stripping them of backwards compatibility, as that's pointless when bundled with the version specific DFHack), but I'm not willing to put in that effort for something that might not even seem to be an advantage.

If someone does include scripts, I'd like to be notified so I won't be taken by surprise.

[myk]

I think the main benefit of distributing with DFHack is that more people have access to the script and more people discover how useful it is. Your point about DFHack releases being infrequent is valid, but it doesn't prevent people from getting bugfixes just as expediently as they do now. They can still download the latest script from GitHub and overwrite their local copy. As you said, it doesn't need to be compiled.

The question of accessibility came up when I recommended The Librarian on Reddit for discovering whether the books retrieved in a raid include any necromancer secrets. The existence of the script was news to a lot of people. If The Librarian were distributed with DFHack (or LNP), then fewer people would be struggling with problems the script has already solved.

[PatrikLundell]

People fail to find a lot of things that are in DFHack currently and thus ask for the implementation of existing functionality. Those knowledgeable enough to find the pending next version of a script on Github are probably capable of finding it as a separate script. Also, "next version" scripts sometimes won't work with the current version because the structures have changed.

However, you're free to make a Pull Request (Github gobbledigook for request to add/change something) with the script if you want to.

[myk]

If you'd rather maintain the script outside of the DFHack tree, then I'm happy staying with the status quo. I wouldn't want to fork the script and create two places where fixes have to be made!

[PatrikLundell]

If it's moved it will be moved, not duplicated, so current repositories wouldn't be maintained.

It also remains to be seen how DFHack survives the Premium release, as the changed UI will mess up everything that has a UI.

[Salmeuk]

It also remains to be seen how DFHack survives the Premium release, as the changed UI will mess up everything that has a UI.

don't scare me patrik. don't scare me

[PatrikLundell]

I believe there's a good chance DFHack itself will adapt, but the UI changes of DF with its various grids will result in the need for some serious work by competent people to make UI functionality work with that framework. I don't know if it will be possible to retain the script/code facing functionality mostly unchanged, or if it will have to be replaced with something that has to be adapted to use different logic.
I would expect "simple" things like popup windows and general dialog boxes to be able to work roughly the same, but anything that defines dimensions and placement will have to change, either in syntax or in use.

The really scary part is the splitting of Premium and Classic UI. If it is done just using different looking widgets that function the same and take up the same space, that's probably not an issue, but if the implementations are functionally different it can be really bad.

Sorry Salmeuk, you didn't want to be scared, but I think there's a reason to be worried on the UI side of things.

To clarify: I'm in favor of a good UI, so I support the UI rework in principle, but I'm not in favor of doing the same UI work twice just for the sake of retaining a Classic/Premium split. Two different UI tile sets/widget looks is perfectly fine, though. Having said that, a UI that doesn't support key shortcuts is NOT good, regardless of how shiny it looks, and I continue to worry about it being put off until never.

[Nopenope]

There's a good chance that Toady won't want to bother with two separate and functionally different UIs (for good reason and probably exactly the same reason as DFHack maintainers wouldn't). It's impossible to know for sure of course but my read has always been that DF Premium would be DF Classic + audio and a nice tileset (and perhaps Steam achievements), and nothing more.