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

Fixes missing insight when fulfilling a goal while already inspired #8494

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dingleberrypicker
Copy link
Contributor

About The Pull Request

You lose ALL insight when you finish focusing, no matter if it goes over 100. This fixes the edge cases when you fulfill a goal right before finishing your current insight, and thus lose an additional 100 insight.

Why It's Good For The Game

Testing

Changelog

🆑 Buttcrack Berry Picker
fix: fixed losing all insight when you focus, instead of just your max cap
/:cl:

@dingleberrypicker
Copy link
Contributor Author

@TheShown911 @ACCount12 Hi~

@Humonitarian
Copy link
Contributor

There was a bug that allowed insight to rise over 100 on artist, might want to check if its still present, as that would allow some potential exploits.

@dingleberrypicker
Copy link
Contributor Author

artist_bench now capped at 100 insight maximum investment even if you evade the prompt, should be fine

@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@
if(H.stats.getPerk(PERK_ARTIST) && H.sanity.insight > 40)
ins_used = input("How much of your insight will you dedicate to this work? 40-[H.sanity.insight > 100 ? 100 : H.sanity.insight]","Insight Used") as null|num
else
ins_used = H.sanity.insight
ins_used = H.sanity.insight > 100 ? 100 : H.sanity.insight
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe clamp function would fit better here? Ternary operator looks kinda messy.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Factually incorrect, ternary operator is the best operator, and hardly worse than a function call.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thats right brotha

@dingleberrypicker
Copy link
Contributor Author

why dis shit failing doe?

@SirRichardFrancis
Copy link
Member

why dis shit failing doe?

[19:18:37] Runtime in utility.dm,914: Cannot execute null.forceMove().

Proc ejectLifting() got called without a prerequisite check (which should probably be a part of the proc itself, but that's another story).
Known bug that is thought to be fixed on up-to-date Master branch.
Either it wasn't actually fixed, or you've used slightly outdated branch for this PR.

@MLGTASTICa
Copy link
Contributor

MLGTASTICa commented Jul 19, 2024

why dis shit failing doe?

[19:18:37] Runtime in utility.dm,914: Cannot execute null.forceMove().

Proc ejectLifting() got called without a prerequisite check (which should probably be a part of the proc itself, but that's another story). Known bug that is thought to be fixed on up-to-date Master branch. Either it wasn't actually fixed, or you've used slightly outdated branch for this PR.

its actually a bit more unusual than that.. apparently it tries to out-lift a turf (which can't move), so its either null because 1)the turf is marked for deletion and so are all its contents , or 2)theres a massive fuck up somewhere thats allowing turfs to be picked up.

Edit: took a look at it , i misread the situation at first(oops), objects were getting marked for delayed deletion by the garbage systems and were stalled out because they were still being referenced(stuff shouldn't delete in the clamps)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants