I don't have any objection to use the fast random function, because it won't be used for visual things where non-uniformness is visible.

Foam really isn't that useful anymore either, so I guess commit anyways.

Yeah, we have to make sure Petra is gonna deal with it. It probably will but it's best to make sure.

Yes, it would indeed be better, but if it is like this one can just add a new resource exactly the same way as before. I don't mind to copy extra code when making a new resource, but I reckoned this is less prone to error?
The screenshots I cannot add, but the icon is just not shown in the trade/diplomacy window. Except the small barter window when selecting the market, I couldn't find what to change to make sure that is not shown there.
I haven't changed the AI, so that will still ask for the resources and barter them also I guess, I didn't check actually. I can try and look for the code in Petra to fix it, but that will take some time.

Thank you for this patch. Wouldn't it be better to set these attributes explicitly for all resources? E.g. simulation/data/resources/food.json:

{
	"code": "food",
	"name": "Food",
	"description": "Harvest from animals, berry bushes, fish, or fields.",
	"order": 1,
	"subtypes": {
		"fish": "Fish",
		"fruit": "Fruit",
		"grain": "Grain",
		"meat": "Meat"
	},
	"truePrice": 100,

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

In D1804#75938, @wraitii wrote:

I think I'll check out how that changes because that might have been WAD by me tbh. Up to personal preference I guess.

The current patch is just a workaround to remove glitches. The shader code should be refactored in future.

I think I'll check out how that changes because that might have been WAD by me tbh. Up to personal preference I guess.

In D1804#75904, @wraitii wrote:

Right, I missed that (didn't actually delve back into this file much). I'd much prefer changing it to foaminterp.x * abs(WindCosSin.x - WindCosSin.y); then to be honest.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

Build failure - The Moirai have given mortals hearts that can endure.

• Use a filter instead of a boolean
• Make method const
• Remove useless temp variable
• Update copyright headers.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

• Don't use randfloat for int ^^

In D1758#75903, @Polakrity wrote:

It could be added also the possibility to specify the initial position of a background.
I think that's what you meant by clamp @Stan .

Thanks @Itms , @Stan and @vladislavbelov

In D1804#75891, @vladislavbelov wrote:

Mind you, foaminterp.x == foaminterp.z. So it equals to:

foam1.x = foaminterp.x * (WindCosSin.x - WindCosSin.y);

It should be determined if we want certain elements of the background can't be stretched.
But it can also cause this sprite could be too small compared to other elements for wide screens.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

Use a hack instead of JS modifications.
The JS changes were almost the same as the code for tilling.

I concur ? I am committing this myself now, and lifting the concern I raised.

In D1804#75402, @wraitii wrote:

Wouldn't it be better to max(0, ...) the whole calculation? This is magic-graphical-code but you're changing behaviour a lot here.

It makes less sense, because you'll get no flares for some angles.

I tested and it works for me on VS2013.

I think I also changed build/workspaces/update-workspaces.sh

He made some changes then reverted them on Itms demand :)

In D1482#75880, @Stan wrote:

In D1482#75878, @Imarok wrote:

In D1482#75871, @Stan wrote:

I can't really review my own patch ^^

But you can review the changes of the guy that commandeered.

Nothing changed :D

Then I don't see, why he has commandeered it...

sry 0 time now

@wraitii https://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?/topic/25747-this-patch-has-expired%EF%BC%81%EF%BC%81%EF%BC%81/&tab=comments#comment-373505

Wrong ticket #2891

In D1482#75878, @Imarok wrote:

In D1482#75871, @Stan wrote:

I can't really review my own patch ^^

But you can review the changes of the guy that commandeered.

In D1482#75871, @Stan wrote:

I can't really review my own patch ^^

In D1784#75860, @Stan wrote:

For Windows we officially dropped it when we committed #5098. For the rest of the platforms most of the ticket are about being compatible, but there is no clear decision.

What's about 2.9?

Currently I use a bit more hardcore script, because I call MSBUILD from commandline

@Imarok had a look. It seems to be processed in binaries/data/mods/public/simulation/ai/common-api/entity.js Looks like it was in advance.

@OptimusShepard Is that due to the js changes ?

I can't really review my own patch ^^

So you acknowledge that the commit may actually be wrong and for instance obfuscate instead of resolve the issue, or fix the issue in one case but still come with a configuration that we don't want, or possibly even breaking under some circumstances, but you are just not concerned about that?

In D1772#75868, @Itms wrote:

The issue might be in our code (and it might not) but I don't have time to debug it properly and/or won't do it anyways as I already have plenty of things I care to do on this project.

I agree with Itms, if you don't have the time or will to do something properly, then don't do it.

Yeah I'm not sure why you went ahead. I'm happy it's in, but you could have left it aside if you wanted, and it would have been thoroughly reviewed in the same way as the other macOS TLS patches from the re-release (probably at a moment where it would become high priority, like the A24 release). Did you feel pressured to review it somehow (this is what your message looks like)? Or did it look like a low hanging fruit? I'm interested in knowing that in order to make sure the priority order of reviews in done in a sensible way.

In D1772#75866, @elexis wrote:

Mostly I'm wondering what Itms had to say about this patch, as Stan, Itms and Tobbi had created the release candidate, but this patch was somehow not committed with the others.

In D1772#75866, @elexis wrote:

Mostly I'm wondering what Itms had to say about this patch, as Stan, Itms and Tobbi had created the release candidate, but this patch was somehow not committed with the others.

In D1772#74981, @wraitii wrote:

Crashes preventing access to the lobby feel like a blocker to me

Agree

I'm accepting this as I believe it's worth having. I am not committing it nor closing the diff. If somebody wants to come in and do the hard work, feel free.

Then you should press the Like button instead of the Accept button.

In D1784#75840, @vladislavbelov wrote:

In D1784#75828, @Itms wrote:

I think that if we keep supporting 2.8 we need to build patches with it, else we will commit a lot of 3.0+ changes without noticing. I believe the overwhelming majority of distributions used by our devs and contributors ships 3+.
I would be in favor of officially moving to 3+, which is possible if it is available (not necessarily the default,since it is for devs and package maintainers) on the platforms you mention.

I definitely agree to move forward and drop old versions. But probably we still have users with OS that uses 2.8 (and sometimes can't use newer versions without pain) by default or we recommend to use 2.8 by our build instructions.

So at least we need to make a remark about it in our build instructions.

• Fix Itms' comments.

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

In rP22207#32996, @vladislavbelov wrote:

In rP22207#32992, @wraitii wrote:

Any chance you can test that?

I can test on VS2013.

In rP22207#32992, @wraitii wrote:

Any chance you can test that?

I can test on VS2013.

In D1784#75828, @Itms wrote:

I think that if we keep supporting 2.8 we need to build patches with it, else we will commit a lot of 3.0+ changes without noticing. I believe the overwhelming majority of distributions used by our devs and contributors ships 3+.
I would be in favor of officially moving to 3+, which is possible if it is available (not necessarily the default,since it is for devs and package maintainers) on the platforms you mention.

I definitely agree to move forward and drop old versions. But probably we still have users with OS that uses 2.8 (and sometimes can't use newer versions without pain) by default or we recommend to use 2.8 by our build instructions.

Well whoever gets to test it first commits the fix I'd say ?

I'm at work so I only have Linux, but if Stan doesn't get around to it I can test tonight.

Will try. Finally understood why simply installing buildtools doesn't work. They only included C# and VB.net. So I need to install VS2013

Tests are actually easier than writing whole components.

Any chance you can test that?

Successful build - Chance fights ever on the side of the prudent.

I certainly would like to be complete, but the unit tests seem a little too complicated for me now :)
Is the JSDoc somewhat better now?

Some documentation mainly.

Annoying... Can anyone raise a concern? I'm not sure I'll have time to fix it today/tonight - also don't have VS13. I'll have time tomorrow if needed.

I think that if we keep supporting 2.8 we need to build patches with it, else we will commit a lot of 3.0+ changes without noticing. I believe the overwhelming majority of distributions used by our devs and contributors ships 3+.