Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove block info if present when placing on air (more in desc) #4234

Merged

Conversation

JustAHuman-xD
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Currently SF supports removing ghost blocks by placing a block where the "ghost block" is, however it only supports ghost blocks of registered items. If an item is no longer registered but the data is still there, it does not get removed. This just changes the ghost block handling to account for that as well.

Proposed changes

Make the clearing require block info, not an sf item

Related Issues (if applicable)

Issue with Dynatech's new update

Checklist

  • I have fully tested the proposed changes and promise that they will not break everything into chaos.
  • I have also tested the proposed changes in combination with various popular addons and can confirm my changes do not break them.
  • I have made sure that the proposed changes do not break compatibility across the supported Minecraft versions (1.16.* - 1.20.*).
  • I followed the existing code standards and didn't mess up the formatting.
  • I did my best to add documentation to any public classes or methods I added.
  • I have added Nonnull and Nullable annotations to my methods to indicate their behaviour for null values
  • I added sufficient Unit Tests to cover my code.

@JustAHuman-xD JustAHuman-xD requested a review from a team as a code owner September 6, 2024 01:28
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 6, 2024

Pro Tip!
You can help us label your Pull Requests by using the following branch naming convention next time you create a pull request. ❤️

Branch naming convention Label
feature/** 🎈 Feature
fix/** ✨ Fix
chore/** 🧹 Chores
api/** 🔧 API
performance/** 💡 Performance Optimization
compatibility/** 🤝 Compatibility

If your changes do not fall into any of these categories, don't worry. You can just ignore this message in that case! 👀

@JustAHuman-xD JustAHuman-xD added the ✨ Fix This Pull Request fixes an issue. label Sep 6, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

github-actions bot commented Sep 6, 2024

Slimefun preview build

A Slimefun preview build is available for testing!
Commit: f88c3f6

https://preview-builds.walshy.dev/download/Slimefun/4234/f88c3f63

Note: This is not a supported build and is only here for the purposes of testing.
Do not run this on a live server and do not report bugs anywhere but this PR!

@J3fftw1 J3fftw1 added the 🎯 Needs testing This Issue needs to be tested by our team to see if it can be reproduced. label Sep 6, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@J3fftw1 J3fftw1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM but would love for it to be tested

@Boomer-1 Boomer-1 added Build tested Used to indicate the PR preview build has been tested by one of the team and removed 🎯 Needs testing This Issue needs to be tested by our team to see if it can be reproduced. labels Sep 6, 2024
@Boomer-1
Copy link

Boomer-1 commented Sep 6, 2024

tested and can confirm it removed the old block data, so new blocks placed in the same spot as the old ones work as intended and ghost block data is removed

Copy link
Member

@Sfiguz7 Sfiguz7 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@Sfiguz7 Sfiguz7 merged commit 7d4ed2b into Slimefun:master Sep 6, 2024
17 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Build tested Used to indicate the PR preview build has been tested by one of the team ✨ Fix This Pull Request fixes an issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants