[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#19032) Patch to fix backwards diplomat_success_vs_defender()

["Peter Lunicks" <plunicks@xxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=19032 >

This transaction appears to have no content

Patch to fix diplomat_success_vs_defender() in diplomats.c.
According to source code documentation (comments),
diplomat_success_vs_defender returns TRUE if the "attacker" succeeds.
However, this function was erroneously checking if the *defender* was a
SUPER_SPY rather than the attacker. (The calling function, e.g.
diplomat_infiltrate_tile(), checks if the defender is SUPER_SPY, so
diplomat_success_vs_defender() does not need to.)
Also, the 'return myrand(100) > chance;' at the bottom of the function was
reversed. It *should* be '<', since the 'chance' is the calculated chance
that the attacker succeeds (chance is increased if attacker is veteren, for
example).

Patch works against revision 12162 or earlier/later.

Peter Lunicks
Patch to fix diplomat_success_vs_defender() in diplomats.c.
According to source code documentation (comments), diplomat_success_vs_defender returns TRUE if the "attacker" succeeds.
However, this function was erroneously checking if the *defender* was a
SUPER_SPY rather than the attacker. (The calling function, e.g.
diplomat_infiltrate_tile(), checks if the defender is SUPER_SPY, so
diplomat_success_vs_defender() does not need to.)
Also, the 'return myrand(100) > chance;' at the bottom of the
function was reversed. It *should* be '<', since the 'chance' is the
calculated chance that the attacker succeeds (chance is increased if
attacker is veteren, for example). 

Patch works against revision 12162 or earlier/later.

Peter Lunicks

diplomat_success_vs_defender-fix.patch
Description: Binary data