Hacky Fix: Makes StratCon Scenario Generation Respect Non-Combat Flag in TO&E

[UlyssesSockdrawer]

This is a very simple hacky fix to StratconRulesManager.java's scenario generation.

Please be aware I don't know how to write or add unit tests, so haven't done any of that here.

I've added a line that, when trying to generate a new scenario on a Monday, as well as Nick's original checks of whether a unit is already deployed and is assigned to a track, also checks if the force is flagged as combat.

I've seen it step over a force that was flagged as non-combat in a very simple test campaign using the debugger so I think this works, but this needs careful testing to make sure.

I've attached a save file to this PR that people can use to test by generating some contracts and then seeing if you ever get 'lance-truck' picked as the seed lance.

It has one combat force and one non-combat force - lance-mek (combat) and lance-truck (non-combat).

NonCombatTestUnit-Base.cpnx.gz

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 10.47%. Comparing base (64f8158) to head (4e72790).
Report is 46 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #5010      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     10.46%   10.47%   +0.01%     
- Complexity     6022     6029       +7     
============================================
  Files           951      950       -1     
  Lines        133345   133397      +52     
  Branches      19378    19384       +6     
============================================
+ Hits          13955    13974      +19     
- Misses       118041   118076      +35     
+ Partials       1349     1347       -2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[HammerGS]

I know we have issues that should be identfied and closed with this. Can someone reference those for closure.

[UlyssesSockdrawer]

I'll take a look after dinner and link them all here as I don't have issues closure perms

…

On Fri, 11 Oct 2024, 15:43 Dave N, ***@***.***> wrote: I know we have issues that should be identfied and closed with this. Can someone reference those for closure. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#5010 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVBTMOMEYG277UINTPLXVQDZ27PYHAVCNFSM6AAAAABPTAH6ZWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDIMBXGU3DIMZTGE> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[UlyssesSockdrawer]

@HammerGS looks like:

#2749 - can definitely be closed by this

#3168 - only the 'non-combat' part of this, so might not be fully closed here but might be closed by the work @IllianiCBT did around ForceGen3?

[IllianiCBT]

I'm going to leave #3168 open as this is part of a bigger issue where legacy ATB functionality causes issues with StratCon. For StratCon users shouldn't be deploying from the TO&E and shouldn't be manually un-deploying forces as that will (as illustrated in the cited report) cause issues.