Machine fluid tank update branch #113
No reviewers
Labels
No labels
Area-Assets
Area-Backend
Area-Conduits
Area-Datapacks
Area-Lang
Area-Mod Compat
Area-Parity
Area-Rendering
Good first issue
MC-1.19.2
MC-1.20.1
MC-1.20.4
MC-1.20.6
MC-1.21
MC-1.21.1
Modtoberfest
P-0-High
P-1-Medium
P-2-Low
Status-Awaiting Response
Status-Behind-Flag
Status-Blocked
Status-Cannot Reproduce
Status-Duplicate
Status-Help Wanted
Status-Incomplete Report
Status-Invalid
Status-Needs LTS Backport
Status-Needs Updating
Status-Stale
Status-To Implement
Status-Triage
Status-Wontfix
Status-Wontmerge
Type-Backport
Type-Bug
Type-Documentation
Type-Enhancement
Type-Question
Type-RFC
Type-Suggestion
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: Team-EnderIO/EnderIO#113
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "machine-fluid-tank-update-branch"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Description
Fluid tanks now behave more like they behaved in 1.12, They can be clicked on with buckets or other containers to transfer fluid, their item correspondence are now correctly fluid containing items with accessible fluid stacks. The item variant now renders fluid and displays tank content on the extended tooltip which you can access by holding shift.
Checklist:
Just a quick scan, I don't have the time for reading over your fluid logic however so I'll have to defer that to another reviewer. Nice work overall, just caught a handful of things that already have implementations that you've sort of partially reimplemented.
We already have a lot of tooltip functionality as a part of the IAdvancedTooltipProvider interface, I'd recommend a little read over how this works, most of the tools use it.
As a part of my prior comment, this would then be performed inside of the item itself.
What is the rationale behind a default capacity? Surely we can just expect a capacity to be provided always?
Spacing if this constructor is kept :)
When writing JavaDocs, you don't need this hyphen as that'll then be rendered in with the parameter descriptions in an IDE.
Spacing/Newlines on this file are a little wonky, might want to auto-format.
Why would we allow fluid tank stacking?
Could you clarify what you mean by this?
Spacing on the end there :)
@ -34,3 +40,4 @@return InteractionResult.SUCCESS;Level level = pContext.getLevel();BlockPos pos = pContext.getClickedPos();On a return, we don't generally have to put an else, but its stylistic choice.
Also check your spacing :)
I don't know what the fuck I'm doing wrong. Event this branch broke down for some inexplicable reason. I'm truly sorry for the pain this causes you
The rationale is that we probably want a default unified size for all machines, we wouldn't want the vat to have tanks with 16 buckets size, a combustion generator with 5, and other machines with other random numbers added at different points in time. We would like it to be set to one default value and then if there is a specific reason you may change it to change a specific need of a specific machine. Now I removed the field and just inlined it into one of the constructors.
It's a feature in 1.12 and is one of my absolute favourite features of EnderIO. It makes the tanks of enderIO the most powerful fluid storing items in modded minecraft in my opinion!
Sure, since the tag name "fluid" is written to and read from in both the item variant and the block variant, as well as in many other parts of the mod. If you change it in one place, you are going to break the link between the two types. This bug would probably go unnoticed since it would only void fluids under very specific circumstances. So keeping the tag name in one, global place would greatly reduce this risk. It would simply be neater.
Oh no; do you have any copies of your work? If not I can try and help you to restore the branch.
Yes. The work is fine, the branch is dead. I'll make a new pr in a few minutes with fixes to your comments
I'm glad to hear you've not lost any of your hard work; no rush with any of this, I just wanted to ask if I could help at all :)
Next time I have to rebase I'll gladly take your help! It seem like it is there I butcher git bigtime...
Okay. PR is live now, let me know if there are any more changes that is to be made. I really like the feedback since I haven't really coded in Java since like Java 8. And never on this level of quality or in this code base.
Pull request closed