[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#3928) Convert client to use PF

["Raimar Falke" <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 01:43:25AM -0700, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Raimar Falke wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 08:43:28AM -0700, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> > >  /********************************************************************** 
> > > -...
> > > +  PF callback to get the path with the minimal number of steps (out of 
> > > +  all shortest paths).
> > >  ***********************************************************************/
> > > +/* Glip: can we have a better name please? */
> > > +static int my_get_EC(int x, int y, enum known_type known,
> > > +              struct pf_parameter *param)
> > 
> > You can create one. I always use "my_". If I would have anonymous
> > function I make give them no name at all.
> 
> Well, even client_goto_EC_callback is nicer than "mine".
> 
> But I would do EC_always_one...

And the other callback?

> > > I didn't change any of your code, only comments, but I added one fix to 
> > > prevent client crashing (also marked by "Glip:") and threw in a couple of 
> > > fixes of the path_finding, for good measure.  These were the bugs I 
> > > discovered while doing rampage, we can commit them separately or as part 
> > > of your patch.  The bugs are:
> > > -- construct_path tried to step back beyond the initial position of the 
> > >    path
> > > -- zoc-handling prevented paths ending on a military target.
> > 
> > It was to be expected that we find errors in PF. These should be
> > commited separately.
> 
> Can you check and commit them please?

Yes.

> Nobody but you can check it anyway.
> 
> > > On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > Open issues are:
> > > > > >  - the network interface doesn't support dangerous tiles
> > > > > >  - the path execution at the server doesn't support dangerous tiles
> > > > > >  - the network interface is quite weird (for example it divides the
> > > > > >  path into 20-positions chunks while a chunk could holds 1500/2=750
> > > > > >  positions)
> > > 
> > > So this means that if I attempt doing goto with a trireme I will get a 
> > > core?  I think it should be fixed before this is committed.
> > 
> > Untested: the server will just go the steps and will not wait at the
> > steps at which the unit should wait. So you don't get a core but a
> > sunken trireme.
> 
> Not as bad as the core.  Any reason why you want to leave it for later?

The protocol needs to be changed (rather easy) but also the goto
execution. I skimed goto_route_execute and had the great urge to
rewrite it. I will provide a patch for these two issues.

> > > But have you fasted?
> > 
> > Can I do more sport in exchange? This is also a burden.
> 
> Okay.

Good.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "Reality? That's where the pizza delivery guy comes from!"