• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • 🏆 Hive's 6th HD Modeling Contest: Mechanical is now open! Design and model a mechanical creature, mechanized animal, a futuristic robotic being, or anything else your imagination can tinker with! 📅 Submissions close on June 30, 2024. Don't miss this opportunity to let your creativity shine! Enter now and show us your mechanical masterpiece! 🔗 Click here to enter!

Update to the Spell Section?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Update Spell Section [Idea: JASS-Code is required]

Hey all. As more as I review spells code as more I can see that spell submitters are to lazy to post their JASS code to the spellpage.

I thought about making a rule, if, when you submit a spell and mark JASS, you have to post the code aswell...

Its really annoying for me to need to open it in the Editor just to see the code.

Edit:
As now the discussion becomes bigger and bigger, I suggest reading the whole Thread.

The most important posts are as following:

Gui also?
Already working on it?
A few pro statements
Post code if extractor fails
Second idea
Another pros for this changes
 
Last edited:
Level 14
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
816
Maybe, but for judging spells need to be tested in-game so you would have to open the map anyway.

No, not necessarily, most reviews i do are pure code reviews. I never acutally test the spell, but instead i try to figure out what could go wrong. Also, i assume spells are submitted in a working state.
 
Level 17
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
1,349
Ok, this is something that should be done not only to Jass, but to GUI too... however, mods are waiting for v1.24 to apply the new rules and purge the spell section 2 weeks after the release.

One more thing, this conversation happened a few months ago about Ralle working on a trigger extractor which automatically posts the triggers in a neat manner in the thread description once the resource is uploaded. I don't know what happened concerning that and on whether it works or not.

Yet and however, if it should be done manually yes there should be a strict rule on that. I mean I myself updated my only spell a month ago to post my triggers as to make it easier for others to deal with...

Hope I cleared some issues up.
 

Dr Super Good

Spell Reviewer
Level 64
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
27,229
This seems pretty pointless and usless. Honestly opening a map takes 10 seconds once WE is cached especially since spell maps are so simple.

Also on top of that it would be easier just to make some form of trigger extraction script so you can view the maps triggers from the browser. Wait a moment, Ralle was making one of those if I remember, thus finalizing why this idea is pointless.

Also for judging spells, may I remind people that you are actually meant to have tested it atleast once ingame... As game engine bugs are not apparent from triggers.

Thus my colclusion is it is entirly optional if an author does that or not. As you should end up viewing the spell in WE anyway and also there may be scripts to do this for you in the future embeded into the sites so it is automatically done for everyone.
 
Level 17
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
1,349
Dr Super Good said:
This seems pretty pointless and usless. Honestly opening a map takes 10 seconds once WE is cached especially since spell maps are so simple.
Well yes true, but having it in the thread description sometimes allow you not to download one badly done spell - of which there are many - and also allows the person to check the code wherever he is (although I don't see the point of that, but lets say someone is REALLY bored at school with nothing better to do).

As for the practicality of this really is, let's say you checked the spell using WE, the other day as the spell is being discussed, you don't have to reopen the map after every comment to re-check the trigger. Other than that, I see it has no use (some people want it to avoid downloading and opening the map with WE, but would checking without test do any good?)
 
allows the person to check the code wherever he is (although I don't see the point of that, but lets say someone is REALLY bored at school with nothing better to do).

Lol, thats bad said. I sometimes have time to review spells, whether I am in train, school, work or at home. I shouldn'T have to use the WE just to check how something is scripted, if I don't want to test it at that time.

It also allows you to see the diffrents faster and you can see the spells scripting at the first page, which will decrease amount of downloads of bad spells.
 
Level 14
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
804
PurplePoot said:
Ralle is already working on an extractor, as several people have said (for both GUI and JASS).
That's lolworthy. There's no way for Ralle to extract only the spell from the .w3x, it'd include all of the libraries as well. People should just post it, otherwise they can consider their spells automatically rejected.
 
Level 17
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
1,349
Well about the program, there are two things - I already mentioned this:
that either all triggers would show in hidden tags, or that either the user should follow a certain pattern of naming folders in which he has triggers that shouldn't be shown - which is more complicated then posting the triggers themselves.
 
Don't forget guys, its the Spells Sections, but has Spells AND Systems. Therefore we WOULD have to make a diffrence, which would let us select whether its a System or spell.
But, I would vote for letting the mappers doing it on their own, its 5 seconds and helps us reviewing and getting bad spells from this side and removes traffic of really awful stuff.
 
Ralle is already working on an extractor, as several people have said (for both GUI and JASS).
This is a good idea IMO. So what if libraries are also extracted ? There is no problem, in fact the reader can know immediately which systems the spell uses and which versions.
I would support this idea.

It couldn't be perfect, indeed, but removing at least the majority of the crap should be doable (especially by just removing stuff within library/endlibrary).
Bad idea, some newb Jassers actually code their spells as libraries, so doing that would remove the spell itself. You can't distinguish between a spell's code and a system's code.
Don't forget guys, its the Spells Sections, but has Spells AND Systems. Therefore we WOULD have to make a diffrence, which would let us select whether its a System or spell.
I remember Hive having separated sections for GUI, JASS and others. Ralle just screwed up and merged everything. Ralle would, sooner or later, mess up again with your division, and we would have to merge all sort of stuff again...
 
Level 14
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
816
JASS:
scope Spell
    // blah
endscope

vs.

JASS:
library Spell uses A, Few, Other, Libraries
    // blah
endlibrary

and
Line 9001: Undeclared function Foobar
vs.
Line 9002: Missing library requirement: Foo

Pick whatever you want, ill stick to libraries. Oh and library initializers cant screw up anything really. Each one is run in its own virtual thread, whereas with scopes you can screw up all subsequently initialized scopes by crashing the thread (at least thats what i think can happen, i should probably verify this again somewhen, Vex might have changed a few things).
 
ach one is run in its own virtual thread, whereas with scopes you can screw up all subsequently initialized scopes by crashing the thread (at least thats what i think can happen, i should probably verify this again somewhen, Vex might have changed a few things).
Scope initializers can't screw up anything afaik. I support you though, some one should ask Vex this questions.
 
Hmm?
I mean, its optional to do that.

And which good mapper does not say 'You need JNGP' to open this or requires TimerUtils. Those systems are placed everywhere, we can simply provide information about it to make it

1.) Easier to change,

2.) Easier for the importers, when they know what they actually need.

3.) Easier for the uploader, because he only needs to select what he used (And the other optional settable).

4.) This will give more information about system and tools as most users give with their spells, with less work.

Also, this could become a useful thing, for example, we could add additional select inputs, in which you choose the working Wc3 versions for your spell.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top