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

LTTP: Update to options API #4134

Open
wants to merge 74 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

nicholassaylor
Copy link
Contributor

@nicholassaylor nicholassaylor commented Nov 3, 2024

What is this fixing or adding?

  • Updates options calls to use the appropriate access API.
  • per_slot_randoms were elimated in the code
  • In various spots, instances of world: Multiworld, explicit or implied were eliminated (Will be moved to another PR)

This would "supercede" #3764 and #3763
Also would solve concerns in #3382 and #3284

How was this tested?

Running all unittests
Running Generate with seed=1 and comparing patch files and spoiler logs

@github-actions github-actions bot added the waiting-on: peer-review Issue/PR has not been reviewed by enough people yet. label Nov 3, 2024
@ScipioWright ScipioWright added the is: refactor/cleanup Improvements to code/output readability or organizization. label Nov 3, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the affects: core Issues/PRs that touch core and may need additional validation. label Nov 13, 2024
@NewSoupVi
Copy link
Member

There are a couple instances of world.swordless[player] that were missed.
image

@NewSoupVi
Copy link
Member

NewSoupVi commented Jan 14, 2025

In Rom.py line, an instance of world.glitches_required[player] was missed.

@Exempt-Medic Exempt-Medic added the waiting-on: author Issue/PR is waiting for feedback or changes from its author. label Jan 14, 2025
@NewSoupVi
Copy link
Member

In Rom.py line, an instance of world.glitches_required[player] was missed.

Wow, I was tired earlier, sorry for making you go look for it :D

@nicholassaylor
Copy link
Contributor Author

In Rom.py line, an instance of world.glitches_required[player] was missed.

Wow, I was tired earlier, sorry for making you go look for it :D

I was able to piece together what you meant. It helped that it was in the screenshot.

@NewSoupVi
Copy link
Member

That's everything I could find.

Copy link
Member

@NewSoupVi NewSoupVi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looked at every line to find potential errors - They were addressed
Did randomized test generations to catch more errors - They were addressed
Verified that any remaining generations crashes I ran into happen on the old version as well.

Did not compare outputs of successfully generating seeds, that's something another peer review could maybe do.

This is a peer review approval, not a core review approval.

@NewSoupVi NewSoupVi removed the waiting-on: author Issue/PR is waiting for feedback or changes from its author. label Jan 14, 2025
@qwint qwint removed the affects: core Issues/PRs that touch core and may need additional validation. label Jan 15, 2025
@Exempt-Medic
Copy link
Member

I have not looked at the code, but I grabbed main and this and compared the spoiler logs of a two-player ALttP gen with fully-random yamls for seeds 1-50. Not exactly "good" testing, but they were identical outside of playthrough and traversal

@Exempt-Medic
Copy link
Member

Exempt-Medic commented Jan 20, 2025

Copy link
Member

@Exempt-Medic Exempt-Medic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looked at the code, guess my 50 random tests was definitely not enough

@nicholassaylor
Copy link
Contributor Author

I believe that I covered everything that was requested.

Copy link
Member

@Exempt-Medic Exempt-Medic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Peer Review, I suppose. My requested changes were made, the errors I found were fixed. Compared outputs of different generations, but either did not hit the few errors I found or they were not relevant. Searched through all the changes for ".value" to see any asymmetric changes and did not find any.

@NewSoupVi NewSoupVi added waiting-on: core-review Issue/PR has been peer-reviewed and is ready to be merged or needs input from a core maintainer. and removed waiting-on: peer-review Issue/PR has not been reviewed by enough people yet. labels Jan 22, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
is: refactor/cleanup Improvements to code/output readability or organizization. waiting-on: core-review Issue/PR has been peer-reviewed and is ready to be merged or needs input from a core maintainer.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants