@Mister if you have still time for this patch there are a few things left:

• We'd like a unit test (like the one I edited) for the new behaviour. (Basically a copy-pasta from one of the tests, but ensure that the entity to repair/construct is not in the cmpBuilder.Entities list.)
• Our GUI needs some change, you probably need to take a look at unit_actions.js (https://code.wildfiregames.com/source/0ad/browse/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/gui/session/unit_actions.js) and especially in the function around L437 (https://code.wildfiregames.com/source/0ad/browse/ps/trunk/binaries/data/mods/public/gui/session/unit_actions.js$437-448).

Fix tests (from Diff 20734).

One could consider making Petra a bit more chatty in debug mode. I.e. add some debug chat about trying to upgrade.

I guess I'll wait then. ^^

Please also check playing coop, i.e. two machines controlling one player. :) By reading it looks like it'll work fine.

Inlines.

Exclude cheat.

PS::span

In D4762#203177, @marder wrote:

In D4762#203174, @Freagarach wrote:

We might first want to design what we want it to look like?

I do like this design: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/82754-alpha-26-pre-releaserelease-candidate-build-testing/page/12/#comment-510173
by @wowgetoffyourcellphone

For experienced players this isn't useful, but I wonder about new players, although I cannot remember using this ever.

same. I don't think it is useful even for new players. It is just way too much text.
(+ If you need to read so much to understand how something works in the game, then there is a flaw in the design/mechanic itself)

I fully agree. :)

A random thought: Does this mean trees lose health when hit by stray arrows?

We might first want to design what we want it to look like?
For experienced players this isn't useful, but I wonder about new players, altough I cannot remember using this ever.

Reads correct.

I'd say yes.

In D4744#202249, @chrstgtr wrote:

Another team member will do the commit. I don’t think you even have the authorization abilities to do so

Correct. :)
@wowgetoffyourcellphone do you have the time to commit this?

Fix the indent, add it only to structures doing actual research (fixes the checkrefs) and ship it, I'd say. A globalscript fix would be much more correct, but also way more work with added chances of breakage.

In D4380#202145, @borg- wrote:

An aura to fatten garrisoned animals.

The problem would be PetraAI, I guess. She will slaughter the animals before fattening, which would make her significantly worse.

In D4187#202143, @lyv wrote:

General high level observations. Maybe wrong, I have not dabbled in this code enough to say with certainty.

• Is the gaia animal UnitAI supposed to handle the behavior of the player entities being attacked?
• Should cmpAttack actually care for this at all?
• Perhaps UnitAI should instead do this in INDIVIDUAL.ATTACKED state transition if the attacking entity is a dangerous animal and call nearby entities with the same owner.

+1

A bit more explanation seems in place.
You use now the template of the foundation (foundation|<sometemplatename>). However, Foundation.js has a property called finalTemplateName, which is the truth about what the foundation will become when finished. E.g. foundation|<sometemplatename> may become foundation|<someothertemplatename> when finished.
As such, when cmpFoundation is present, it ought to be used. Else one can use the current template name (no need for the includes then).

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/6598

I thought of this just yesterday. ^^' I guess I'm too busy to think clearly.
Thanks for the patch!

I guess an aura is (currently) suboptimal, as the animals may wander outside of the aura.

This is how we say a patch is WIP. :) (By prefixing the title.)
Regarding the "cannot repair structures not known", it means that once captured a barracks of the enemy, we cannot repair it. Be aware of that. :) (One can check around that, using the hint provided inline.)

It is nice that we have some larger steps at the end.

Well, the one committing this needs to be absolutely sure this is an inteded side effect:

Notice formations will (...) not [reform] after their members starts to do orders by themselves.

In D4735#201714, @marder wrote:

but @Freagarach (...) prefer grouping by function first.

Don't hold something back on my account, I'm merely saying something that seems logical to me. :) I haven't actually tried any order so am not qualified to speak over what I like more. ;)

I'll write you some tests when I have some more time on my hands. Feel free to do it yourself though.

Instead of comments, one could also try using whitespace to make the distinction clearer. I'm not a great fan of splitting per phase, because e.g. Mauryans can construct the elephant stable in phase 2, but the rest only in phase 3.
I guess one could/should check whether the comments are kept when running the template reorganiser.

Linter.

I didn't want to touch this file unless I had time for a more thorough cleaning, but meh.
I'll check mirages and (de)serialisation.

Fixes #6583.

rP27000

Please abandon, as https://code.wildfiregames.com/rP26998 has already landed.

Forum discussion: https://wildfiregames.com/forum/topic/82176-differentiating-civilizations-persian.

Can you attach a replay, please? :)

However, I consider this a very low prio at the moment. ^^

I agree on the current patch not adding much, but one can put constraints on upgrading (e.g. tech required) and not on promoting. So this can be changed a bit to check for that.

(For the committer, which may be me depending on time.)

^

It would give them almost the same aura as the carnyx. Maybe give the latter a positive friendly bonus?

D368

Rebased.

Rebased, fix linter.

A more involved and correct fix.

We're still in the twinFormations of other formations. The last part might need to be disband where we remove ourselves from the twinFormations of our twins.

Fix the symptom of adding members to a non-existing formation.
I'll need to investigate further what triggered this.

Linter.

^

Yeah, that was already the case before this patch.

In D4714#200437, @real_tabasco_sauce wrote:

If someone else approves as well, I'll go ahead and accept it.

That is not how it works. xD If you agree with the patch, you may just accept it. :)