| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 00:03 |
|
Ritchie joined #minetest-dev |
| 02:14 |
|
rocky1138 joined #minetest-dev |
| 02:27 |
|
ssieb joined #minetest-dev |
| 02:42 |
|
Void7 joined #minetest-dev |
| 02:59 |
|
rubenwardy joined #minetest-dev |
| 03:21 |
|
Miner_48er joined #minetest-dev |
| 03:24 |
|
DI3HARD139 joined #minetest-dev |
| 04:50 |
|
SloanOnLinux joined #minetest-dev |
| 05:09 |
|
Hunterz joined #minetest-dev |
| 05:29 |
|
burli joined #minetest-dev |
| 06:45 |
|
rdococ joined #minetest-dev |
| 07:06 |
|
Darcidride joined #minetest-dev |
| 07:16 |
|
davisonio joined #minetest-dev |
| 07:20 |
|
Calinou joined #minetest-dev |
| 07:35 |
|
Calinou joined #minetest-dev |
| 07:44 |
|
Hunterz joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:00 |
|
nrzkt joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:00 |
|
davisonio joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:04 |
|
Gael-de-Sailly joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:11 |
|
Niebieski joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:12 |
Niebieski |
Hey guys, I just tried to comment out the collision detection code and go climb anything. It worked. |
| 08:13 |
Niebieski |
My account going to be banned again I guess. xD |
| 08:19 |
|
Calinou joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:21 |
|
Krock joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:53 |
|
lisac joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:21 |
|
Megaf joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:21 |
|
edgrey joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:21 |
Megaf |
Hello folks, so, anyone has any idea on how to fix my linking problem and if it's a bug here on in minetest itself? |
| 09:28 |
Megaf |
#4306 |
| 09:28 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4306 -- Minetest failing to compile (link CXX executable) on Debian Stretch |
| 09:52 |
Megaf |
I'm recompiling it here this time with ENABLE_SYSTEM_JSONCPP=0 |
| 09:55 |
|
xunto joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:56 |
Megaf |
#4306 |
| 09:56 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4306 -- Minetest fails to link JSONCPP on Debian 9.x if -DENABLE_SYSTEM_JSONCPP=1 |
| 10:10 |
|
Krock joined #minetest-dev |
| 10:58 |
|
proller joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:05 |
|
Fixer joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:40 |
|
SloanOnLinux joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:43 |
|
SloanOnLinux joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:56 |
|
Lunatrius` joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:04 |
|
Lunatrius` joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:05 |
|
Zeno` joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:19 |
|
proller joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:20 |
|
Grandolf joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:45 |
|
rubenwardy joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:51 |
|
paramat joined #minetest-dev |
| 12:57 |
|
Darcidride_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 13:06 |
|
Calinou joined #minetest-dev |
| 13:16 |
VanessaE |
Bug report from one of my admins, "saplings are broken, they place on any node and ignore protection, [...]" Is this still the case in current minetest_game? |
| 13:16 |
VanessaE |
(these have to be mt_game as the server it was reported on doesn't run any mods that add trees) |
| 13:51 |
paramat |
weird |
| 13:52 |
rubenwardy |
Is it the sapling being placed or the tree growing? |
| 13:53 |
VanessaE |
I assume the real problem is the tree growth |
| 13:53 |
VanessaE |
because that person mentioned the trees were griefing protected structures. |
| 13:53 |
paramat |
ah |
| 13:53 |
VanessaE |
but preventing placing a sapling in a protected area is also surely needed. |
| 13:53 |
paramat |
that should be fixed for months now |
| 13:54 |
paramat |
(tree growth griefing) |
| 13:54 |
paramat |
i fixed that on demand |
| 13:54 |
VanessaE |
I'd have thought so; my minetest_game is from May 8, so not too old. |
| 13:54 |
rubenwardy |
default.grow_sapling: https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/blob/master/mods/default/trees.lua#L39 default.grow_tree: https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/blob/master/mods/default/trees.lua#L162 |
| 13:54 |
paramat |
2 types of tree schematics, the sapling version doesn't force=place |
| 13:54 |
rubenwardy |
can't see any is_protected calls |
| 13:56 |
paramat |
saplings are like any other node, they should not be able to be placed in protected areas |
| 13:56 |
paramat |
think you need clarification from your reporter |
| 13:56 |
rubenwardy |
what if they get placed just under the protection, then the tree grows into the protection? |
| 13:56 |
paramat |
yeah that#s possible |
| 13:56 |
paramat |
(') |
| 13:57 |
paramat |
but a minor problem |
| 13:57 |
nore |
paramat: why minor? |
| 13:57 |
paramat |
and they won't replace any nodes |
| 13:57 |
VanessaE |
I think that's what's happening, rubenwardy |
| 13:58 |
VanessaE |
no node should ever be placed by sapling growth in a protected zone |
| 13:58 |
paramat |
minor because they're not force-placed |
| 13:58 |
rubenwardy |
the tree trunks would block the protected area, causing an annoyance for the owner |
| 13:59 |
VanessaE |
paramat: it's not minor. think tree growth into a house. the structure is still there but now the houseis filled with leaves/trunks |
| 13:59 |
VanessaE |
house is* |
| 13:59 |
paramat |
ok |
| 13:59 |
paramat |
just protect down to ground level then |
| 14:00 |
paramat |
anyway, we could add protection checks to the edges of the tree volume, before adding schematic |
| 14:01 |
paramat |
like say, at 5 points: +y, +-x, +-z |
| 14:02 |
paramat |
still think you need clarification from your reporter |
| 14:02 |
nore |
paramat: if we add checks, we still want people to be able to plant trees in their own house |
| 14:02 |
nore |
so saplings need to get an owner |
| 14:04 |
VanessaE |
paramat: the volume idea seems fair, so long as nore's concern is addressed of course |
| 14:04 |
paramat |
oh man of course |
| 14:05 |
paramat |
this is getting messy now |
| 14:05 |
VanessaE |
tree growth always has been :P |
| 14:06 |
paramat |
i don't think it's worth the complexity, if people protect properly down to ground level they'll be ok |
| 14:06 |
VanessaE |
people will never protect "properly". |
| 14:06 |
nore |
paramat: this is important |
| 14:06 |
VanessaE |
and anyway you're still forgetting that a big tree will fill someone's house with one or two saplings. |
| 14:06 |
nore |
paramat: also, depending on the protection mods, protection can be expensive |
| 14:07 |
VanessaE |
you're basically asking people to add a large clearance around their buildings |
| 14:07 |
VanessaE |
when they protect. |
| 14:07 |
VanessaE |
which does NOT work in a real environment |
| 14:07 |
paramat |
ok |
| 14:08 |
paramat |
so sapling owner in metadata |
| 14:08 |
VanessaE |
um, no... |
| 14:09 |
VanessaE |
just check the area on place and as each node is spawned during growth - I mean just how much real "cost" would there be? |
| 14:09 |
nore |
VanessaE: problem is, area can be protected or unprotected after |
| 14:09 |
VanessaE |
(or volume check ahead of time, either way) |
| 14:09 |
paramat |
because protection needs to know an owner |
| 14:09 |
nore |
so I'd say owner in metadata is needed |
| 14:09 |
VanessaE |
nore: sure, but the focus here needs to be what is/isn't protected when the tree grows |
| 14:09 |
nore |
VanessaE: yes |
| 14:09 |
VanessaE |
paramat: no, it doesn't. |
| 14:10 |
nore |
and the owner is needed |
| 14:10 |
paramat |
to allow protected area owner to grow sapligs |
| 14:10 |
VanessaE |
well, it's needed I guess during growth but not when placing. |
| 14:10 |
nore |
we want people to be able to grow trees in their own protected areas |
| 14:10 |
VanessaE |
but the sapling shouldn't be "owned" in the same sense as a steel door |
| 14:10 |
nore |
so owner needs to be saved in node metadata |
| 14:10 |
nore |
VanessaE: no, only owned as in "that player placed the sapling" |
| 14:11 |
VanessaE |
nore: ok. then that I'm not too worried about |
| 14:11 |
nore |
any player can tamper with it, but it will change the "owner" |
| 14:12 |
VanessaE |
point is, a solution needs to be transparent enough that no one except a griefer will notice the change :) |
| 14:12 |
paramat |
yeah 'last placer' |
| 14:15 |
nore |
VanessaE: there will be a problem with placed ungrown saplings though |
| 14:15 |
nore |
(in protected areas) |
| 14:15 |
nore |
they will have to be placed again |
| 14:15 |
VanessaE |
nore: why not an LBM that finds the closest area owner and assigns him/her to the sapling? |
| 14:15 |
nore |
VanessaE: hmmm |
| 14:15 |
nore |
is_protected is not designed to do that |
| 14:15 |
VanessaE |
I know. |
| 14:15 |
VanessaE |
that's the problem. |
| 14:15 |
VanessaE |
well, why not just handle existing saplings as they are now, and limit the fix to newly-placed saplings. |
| 14:15 |
|
sofar_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:15 |
nore |
another I would have liked would have been an is_area_protected that says if any node in an area is protected |
| 14:15 |
VanessaE |
OR |
| 14:15 |
|
ElectronLibre_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:15 |
VanessaE |
look up the ownership of the spot the sapling stands on, and use that for the ownership check for the growth |
| 14:16 |
nore |
well, anyway, is_protected needs a redesign |
| 14:16 |
nore |
VanessaE: not possible |
| 14:16 |
VanessaE |
why not? |
| 14:16 |
|
cat5e joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:16 |
nore |
there's no function that gives the owner of a position... |
| 14:16 |
VanessaE |
huh. |
| 14:17 |
nore |
told you is_protected is not designed to do this |
| 14:17 |
rubenwardy |
is_protected returns the owner of a node |
| 14:17 |
rubenwardy |
or nil if not owned |
| 14:17 |
rubenwardy |
or if the digger is allowed to dig there |
| 14:17 |
nore |
rubenwardy: hmmm |
| 14:17 |
rubenwardy |
/interact |
| 14:17 |
nore |
I thought it was the third |
| 14:18 |
nore |
is_protected(pos, player) |
| 14:18 |
rubenwardy |
* or nil if the digger is allowed to dig there |
| 14:18 |
nore |
oh, it returns the owner if not allowed |
| 14:18 |
nore |
hmmmm |
| 14:19 |
nore |
well, it's a bit better than I previously thought then |
| 14:19 |
|
KaadmY joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:20 |
VanessaE |
um, lua API says it only returns true, false, or nil. |
| 14:22 |
VanessaE |
in any case you never answered my question - what would be the real cost of just calling that function (in some faster, internal way) for every node placed by the growth code? |
| 14:22 |
VanessaE |
"I don't care what anything was 'designed' to do, I care what it CAN do!" :) |
| 14:22 |
rubenwardy |
the message was added after the initial is_protected feature: https://github.com/minetest/minetest/commit/a890c66bc035918d7478fc1742241eadfd9a5bae |
| 14:23 |
nore |
VanessaE: ehm |
| 14:23 |
nore |
pretty expensive, if doing it for each node |
| 14:23 |
VanessaE |
or as paramat said, just at five or six cardinal points |
| 14:23 |
nore |
that would be better |
| 14:23 |
paramat |
it can't be done for every node |
| 14:24 |
VanessaE |
paramat: you mean it would be too expensive. not "it can't be done". |
| 14:24 |
paramat |
correct |
| 14:24 |
rubenwardy |
oh, I seem to be mistaken :'( |
| 14:24 |
|
whitephoenix joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:24 |
rubenwardy |
in anycase, you can still give the placer's name to is_protected |
| 14:25 |
VanessaE |
ok so if it's not designed for the task, then time to design something that WILL work. |
| 14:26 |
paramat |
don't worry about pre-existing saplings without an owner, if they have no owner just disable growng into any protected area |
| 14:27 |
VanessaE |
or, |
| 14:27 |
VanessaE |
if they have no owner, give them to the server admin. |
| 14:27 |
VanessaE |
(via an LBM) |
| 14:27 |
VanessaE |
then they'll behave exactly as before |
| 14:28 |
VanessaE |
I mean, you always have the owner/admin's name available, regardless of what is_protected() can or can't return |
| 14:28 |
paramat |
no thanks, let's avoid LBMs if possible |
| 14:28 |
VanessaE |
ok just *treat* it as owned-by-the-admin then when the growth ABM fires. |
| 14:30 |
paramat |
not even that, any sapling with no 'placer' just doesn't grow into any protected volume. this is simple, saplings with no 'placer' are only briefly temporary |
| 14:30 |
VanessaE |
that'll be a problem I think. |
| 14:30 |
VanessaE |
they're not as temporary as you think. |
| 14:31 |
paramat |
not a problem, a player can just re-plant it |
| 14:31 |
VanessaE |
hah! |
| 14:31 |
VanessaE |
you're funny :) |
| 14:32 |
Zeno` |
I think we as devs need to listen to server operators objectively without letting our personal ideas of what's good/bad or right/wrong in the way |
| 14:32 |
nore |
Zeno`: +1 |
| 14:33 |
VanessaE |
but no really. people aren't just gonna wander around replanting saplings. instead they'll complain that the saplings aren't growing. |
| 14:34 |
paramat |
nah, that would be denying our experience and knowledge |
| 14:34 |
paramat |
they will grow |
| 14:34 |
VanessaE |
paramat: think tree farm. |
| 14:34 |
VanessaE |
these are rather common for new builds. |
| 14:34 |
Zeno` |
paramat, I don't run a server anymore. I am not a regular player anymore. These people are our source of FEEDBACK |
| 14:35 |
Zeno` |
half the crap that worked when I ran a server and was a regular player is probably not valid anymore |
| 14:35 |
Zeno` |
we have to listen more carefully IMO |
| 14:35 |
paramat |
yeah that's fine, i'm listening and considering and value vanessas server experience |
| 14:35 |
paramat |
but i won't stop myself pointing out a bad idea |
| 14:36 |
Zeno` |
I don't see the points you said as to *why* it's a bad idea |
| 14:36 |
VanessaE |
what's so bad about treating non-owned saplings as server-owner-owned for the purpose of the growth ABM? |
| 14:36 |
paramat |
well ok that may be ok |
| 14:37 |
VanessaE |
good. :) |
| 14:37 |
Zeno` |
paramat, I'm not having a go at you personally. I fall into the same trap as well. |
| 14:37 |
paramat |
is it simple to fetch admin name |
| 14:37 |
paramat |
? |
| 14:37 |
VanessaE |
I think sop |
| 14:37 |
VanessaE |
so* |
| 14:37 |
|
T4im joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:37 |
VanessaE |
somewhere there is an admin specified in the config. |
| 14:38 |
VanessaE |
maybe it's just the name= field in mt.conf |
| 14:38 |
VanessaE |
(I don't see it in any of the world files) |
| 14:39 |
VanessaE |
which for any server out there will be that server's official admin anyway |
| 14:39 |
VanessaE |
or you could read auth.txt and find any username in there with suitable privileges. |
| 14:40 |
VanessaE |
(maybe "basic_privs" if something like "areas" isn't defined) |
| 14:40 |
paramat |
surely admin ownership makes no difference: these pre-existing saplings will still not grow in most players own protected areas? |
| 14:41 |
VanessaE |
tree farms. |
| 14:41 |
VanessaE |
large plots of land that have been replanted. |
| 14:41 |
VanessaE |
I'm sure there are other large-scale examples where the trees *must* be allowed to grow. |
| 14:41 |
|
raingloom joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:41 |
VanessaE |
both of these are quite common in a busy server. |
| 14:41 |
T4im |
can't you just do the protection check on placement, and then simply not start the node timer? |
| 14:41 |
paramat |
so you mean admins tend to have large protected areas of saplings? |
| 14:42 |
VanessaE |
paramat: no, but regular users do. the idea is to make sure the not-owned sapling sitting inside that large (as in 300-400 meters on a side) plot of land still grows. |
| 14:42 |
|
Void7 joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:43 |
paramat |
they still won't grow if they are in a regular player's protected area |
| 14:43 |
VanessaE |
they will if the admin owns then at the moment of growth |
| 14:44 |
VanessaE |
sorry if I'm not being clear |
| 14:44 |
paramat |
are we talking about the behaviour of saplings planted before this proposed change comes into effect? |
| 14:44 |
VanessaE |
I just don't want my users to notice any significant change, especially one that requires them to dig up and replant a thousand[*] saplings. |
| 14:44 |
VanessaE |
[*] exaggeration, of course. |
| 14:44 |
VanessaE |
yes. |
| 14:44 |
paramat |
ok |
| 14:45 |
paramat |
ok well as you understand this this would be fine |
| 14:46 |
VanessaE |
sapling has no owner? grow it with admin ownership so that protect areas are ignored. otherwise use the owner it will have been given at planting time |
| 14:46 |
VanessaE |
protection areas( |
| 14:47 |
VanessaE |
should be a matter of one line in the ABM, plus whatever form the check-for-volume code takes. |
| 14:47 |
Zeno` |
hang on |
| 14:47 |
Zeno` |
what happens to saplings right now that are not "owned"? |
| 14:47 |
VanessaE |
they should grow normally regardless of protection. |
| 14:48 |
|
est31 joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:48 |
Zeno` |
but what do they currently do? |
| 14:48 |
VanessaE |
that. |
| 14:48 |
VanessaE |
paramat's initial proposal was to not let them grow at all if they're in a protected area (otherwise grow normally if outside) |
| 14:48 |
Zeno` |
well that's silly |
| 14:49 |
Zeno` |
paramat, if that becomes a PR I'll oppose it |
| 14:49 |
Zeno` |
it doesn't make much (if any) sense |
| 14:49 |
VanessaE |
I think he's already changed his mind :) |
| 14:49 |
Zeno` |
ok *phew* |
| 14:49 |
rubenwardy |
How about let currently placed sapling grow like normal, but check for protection on sapling place |
| 14:49 |
paramat |
oh yeah i see that's not good now |
| 14:50 |
paramat |
i misunderstood |
| 14:50 |
Zeno` |
rubenwardy, I don't think you can place a sapling in a protected area already (if you can, then /that's/ something that I'd agree should be fixed) |
| 14:50 |
|
rdococ joined #minetest-dev |
| 14:50 |
rubenwardy |
they can get placed just under the protection, then the tree grows into the protection |
| 14:50 |
Zeno` |
rubenwardy, ahh ok |
| 14:51 |
paramat |
yes best check on place then not start node timer |
| 14:51 |
paramat |
bbl |
| 14:51 |
|
paramat left #minetest-dev |
| 14:51 |
Zeno` |
how can they grow into the protection if the sapling owner and the protected area owner are different? |
| 14:52 |
Zeno` |
the code doesn't check? |
| 14:52 |
VanessaE |
in the existing code, no. |
| 14:52 |
VanessaE |
user Foo places a sapling right next to Bar's property, it will grow into Bar's property because Bar doesn't own the cube on which it was placed. |
| 14:53 |
VanessaE |
so Foo can grief Bar's house with enough saplings |
| 14:53 |
Zeno` |
and the side effects are that leaves (and possibly wood) replace air in the protected area? |
| 14:53 |
VanessaE |
yep. |
| 14:53 |
VanessaE |
leaves and trunks |
| 14:53 |
VanessaE |
(depending on the type of tree) |
| 14:53 |
Zeno` |
so... we check first |
| 14:54 |
Zeno` |
it's a single 'if' |
| 14:54 |
Zeno` |
that's not going to impact performance at all |
| 14:55 |
Zeno` |
(and I really mean 0% difference in performance) |
| 14:56 |
VanessaE |
well |
| 14:56 |
VanessaE |
six checks (owner + volume) |
| 14:56 |
Zeno` |
modern CPUs with branch prediction and pipelining... adding a conditional in something as small as that will make no performance difference as all (seriously) |
| 14:56 |
VanessaE |
Åt yeah, it won't have any effect. |
| 14:57 |
Zeno` |
nah you let them plant them sapling but then just don't let protected air nodes be changed |
| 14:57 |
VanessaE |
that would be too expensive. |
| 14:57 |
Zeno` |
really? |
| 14:57 |
VanessaE |
apparently so |
| 14:57 |
VanessaE |
that's what the volume check would be for |
| 14:57 |
VanessaE |
don't allow placement at all then |
| 14:58 |
VanessaE |
that way the user has some warning that the sapling will never grow |
| 14:58 |
T4im |
aren't trees schematics? that's already a place/no-place decision by api then |
| 14:58 |
Zeno` |
maybe. There are several different approaches |
| 14:58 |
VanessaE |
T4im: that's for overriding structural nodes. not air. |
| 14:59 |
VanessaE |
but your point stands. |
| 15:00 |
Zeno` |
ok, at any rate the issue needs to be looked at |
| 15:00 |
T4im |
I mean the sapling grow function needs to make such a decision, because the api just allows full growth or no growth for it, no protection checks, no checks for replacement (except the full or air thing you mentioned) |
| 15:02 |
VanessaE |
so just to summarize.... I guess the best is to check for ownership of the target location and if anything inside the tree's predicted volume is owned, and deny placement right there and then (with an error message). for anything that was already placed, check at growth time if it's not owned, and if that's the case, just grow it anyway regardless of protection. |
| 15:03 |
VanessaE |
otherwise take overlap of predicted volume and owned areas into account and deny growth. |
| 15:03 |
VanessaE |
maybe even drop the sapling out as an item. |
| 15:03 |
VanessaE |
you want SOME visual indication that a sapling will eventually grow where it stands. |
| 15:04 |
T4im |
what do you mean with taking overlap into account? |
| 15:04 |
VanessaE |
(right now the mere presence of the sapling is indication enough, but it won't be if conditions to prevent its growth are put into place) |
| 15:04 |
VanessaE |
overlap of the tree's predicted volume with whatever areas are owned next to it |
| 15:06 |
|
Void7 joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:16 |
|
STHGOM joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:16 |
Fixer |
VanessaE: is not areas mod excludes this kind of griefing? |
| 15:16 |
VanessaE |
Fixer: nope. |
| 15:16 |
VanessaE |
it can't stop a tree from growing. |
| 15:16 |
Fixer |
VanessaE: is not it protects everything from top to buttom? |
| 15:16 |
VanessaE |
no. |
| 15:17 |
VanessaE |
it protects only within the area the user requested. |
| 15:20 |
Fixer |
i've seen such kind of grief somewhere, but very rarely |
| 15:22 |
VanessaE |
apparently one of my users' larger structures was damaged by it just recently. |
| 15:22 |
VanessaE |
(the structure was some sort of giant tree) |
| 15:23 |
T4im |
so cleaning up with a chainsaw is out of the question, too, great |
| 15:23 |
nore |
VanessaE: I'd still say check on grow |
| 15:23 |
nore |
if someone places a sapling |
| 15:23 |
nore |
and then the area above is protected |
| 15:24 |
VanessaE |
nore: I'm not against that |
| 15:24 |
Fixer |
VanessaE: maybe "areas" and "protector redo" mod makers should add some workaround for this? |
| 15:24 |
VanessaE |
Fixer: this is best fixed in the engine/game. |
| 15:24 |
VanessaE |
nore: btw, something similar will surely be needed for the spawn_tree() call |
| 15:25 |
nore |
VanessaE: no, spawn_tree is engine, isn't it? |
| 15:25 |
nore |
if you want to check protection, you do before calling it |
| 15:25 |
VanessaE |
yes but it also ignores protection |
| 15:25 |
VanessaE |
I mean for the volume check |
| 15:26 |
nore |
VanessaE: yes, it does |
| 15:26 |
nore |
so if you want to place something |
| 15:26 |
VanessaE |
seems to me that the engine should determine the volume when it tries to grow the tree, and pass that info back to Lua |
| 15:26 |
nore |
but check for protection |
| 15:26 |
nore |
then, you have to check before calling spawn_tree |
| 15:26 |
VanessaE |
nono |
| 15:26 |
nore |
and don't call it if it is protected |
| 15:26 |
nore |
VanessaE: why ? |
| 15:26 |
VanessaE |
that's for the ground node yeah |
| 15:26 |
VanessaE |
but I mean for the volume check |
| 15:27 |
VanessaE |
spawn_tree() should do whatever it does now, but return the min/max X/Y/Z coords if the tree failed protection checks. |
| 15:27 |
VanessaE |
or something. |
| 15:27 |
everamzah |
liquid source nodes placed outside of protection spill into protected areas, too, just as an aside |
| 15:27 |
T4im |
you can probably get the volume from the mts file |
| 15:27 |
VanessaE |
yes |
| 15:27 |
nore |
VanessaE: no, you do the volume check before calling |
| 15:28 |
VanessaE |
T4im: not for spawn_tree(), that's L-system |
| 15:28 |
T4im |
oh |
| 15:28 |
VanessaE |
nore: but how? |
| 15:28 |
VanessaE |
nore: are you proposing a new engine APi call to do that? |
| 15:28 |
nore |
VanessaE: check the corners |
| 15:28 |
nore |
or, a new engine API could be good |
| 15:29 |
VanessaE |
I mean, it's impossible really to know the volume of an L-system tree until it's been spawned, so something that iterates through the tree def to determine its volume would be needed. but one would hope that same code could be used to cache a copy of the tree that can then be placed with some other call. |
| 15:29 |
nore |
VanessaE: hm, there are L-system trees indeed |
| 15:29 |
nore |
:/ |
| 15:30 |
VanessaE |
i.e. it "grows" the tree in an internal vmanip buffer or something, and only places that buffer on-demand |
| 15:30 |
everamzah |
trying to play with a test and it's taking forever to grow them. i have meselamps... they do take a while sometimes, eh |
| 15:30 |
nore |
everamzah: I think if you wai 5-10 minutes they should all be grown |
| 15:31 |
nore |
(with the nodetimer tree) |
| 15:31 |
nore |
+s |
| 15:31 |
everamzah |
k, thx |
| 15:31 |
T4im |
nah, the new nodetimers have higher growtimes iirc |
| 15:31 |
nore |
T4im: ah? |
| 15:31 |
nore |
hm, don't remember what the time it |
| 15:33 |
T4im |
40-80minutes initially, and then maybe delay |
| 15:35 |
everamzah |
good grief |
| 15:35 |
T4im |
lbm started ones a bit earlier though |
| 15:36 |
T4im |
(delay only if it cannot grow, it's then try every 2-10 minutes again) |
| 15:41 |
everamzah |
kinda an obvious issue once you think about it. someone places a sapling and a meselamp under your build. then you get the privilege of removing a bunch of tree and leaves, but at least there's apples |
| 15:41 |
everamzah |
sometimes |
| 15:43 |
|
ABJ joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:52 |
|
xunto joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:56 |
|
paramat joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:57 |
paramat |
it's no problem, for each sapling we know what volume the resulting tree will be, so check protection at a few points on the edges of that volume. for example jungletrees are 5x5x(up to 16) |
| 15:58 |
|
edgrey joined #minetest-dev |
| 15:58 |
VanessaE |
paramat: that's fine for schematic-based trees, yeah |
| 15:58 |
paramat |
now what about rubenwardy's idea that doesn't need 'placer metadata': do all the checks 'on place sapling' and just don't start the timer if not allowed |
| 15:59 |
VanessaE |
but not for L-system trees. those aren't what my admin was reporting on, but they'll need addressed just the same. |
| 15:59 |
paramat |
yeah |
| 15:59 |
paramat |
well those aren't part of mtgame so deal with those seperately |
| 16:00 |
est31 |
"so check protection at a few points on the edges of that volume" |
| 16:00 |
est31 |
thats not really perfect |
| 16:00 |
paramat |
it can't be perfect |
| 16:00 |
est31 |
better is to add a volume based protection api check :) |
| 16:00 |
paramat |
jungletree has 400 nodes |
| 16:01 |
paramat |
ok perhaps |
| 16:01 |
est31 |
minetest.is_protected_somewhere(player, minpos, maxpos) |
| 16:01 |
est31 |
something like that |
| 16:01 |
paramat |
if it's lightweight |
| 16:02 |
est31 |
it depends on the implementation, but most protection mods should handle it just as well |
| 16:02 |
Krock |
s/somewhere/area/ |
| 16:02 |
|
Hunterz joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:02 |
est31 |
yeah, the actually chosen name is not as important |
| 16:03 |
paramat |
checking points on the edges of the volume is just as effective |
| 16:03 |
Krock |
but for big areas it may be insecure |
| 16:03 |
est31 |
its less effective in fact |
| 16:03 |
est31 |
and insecure |
| 16:03 |
paramat |
protected areas are larger than 3x3 |
| 16:03 |
est31 |
the api nowhere says that |
| 16:04 |
paramat |
yes, i mean such small areas are unlikely |
| 16:04 |
est31 |
still they are possible |
| 16:04 |
est31 |
and even if you checked multiple nodes at the edge, its less efficient |
| 16:05 |
est31 |
e.g. think of tenplus1's protector mod |
| 16:05 |
paramat |
anyway a protection-in-volume API would be best, if ths has to check every node |
| 16:05 |
est31 |
how does that mod implement minetest.is_protected? |
| 16:05 |
paramat |
(this) |
| 16:05 |
Krock |
the protecor mods searchs for protector nodes bearby |
| 16:05 |
|
rdococ_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:05 |
Krock |
*nearby |
| 16:05 |
est31 |
it does a minetest.find_nodes_in_area call |
| 16:06 |
est31 |
around the checked position |
| 16:06 |
est31 |
so if you call minetest.is_protected for some points at the edge of the area, it will spawn one such call for every point |
| 16:07 |
est31 |
what the call does is nothing else than iterating over the whole area and checking for the node, in c++ |
| 16:07 |
est31 |
but, most times the areas will overlap, which means some nodes are checked multiple times |
| 16:08 |
est31 |
a minetest.is_protected_area call can be implemented with a minetest.find_nodes_in_area call as well |
| 16:08 |
est31 |
here however you only need a single call, which means that each node gets checked only one time |
| 16:09 |
est31 |
AND its secure |
| 16:09 |
paramat |
ok so yes i agree with checking every node, not just edges |
| 16:10 |
est31 |
that can be used as fallback |
| 16:10 |
est31 |
e.g. standard implementation of minetest.is_protected_area is doing minetest.is_protected on every node of the area |
| 16:11 |
est31 |
but protection mods are encouraged to override it |
| 16:11 |
est31 |
hrmm probably it should default to false if there is no protection mod at all |
| 16:11 |
est31 |
so something like: |
| 16:12 |
est31 |
function minetest.is_protected_area(player, minpos, maxpos) |
| 16:12 |
est31 |
if is_protected_orig == minetest.is_protected then return false end |
| 16:12 |
est31 |
for nodes in area inside minpos maxpos |
| 16:12 |
T4im |
so do I understand correctly, the idea is to test both area-corner nodes of the requested area to be in any protected area directly? seems more efficient, yea |
| 16:12 |
est31 |
if minetest.is_protected(bla) return true end |
| 16:13 |
est31 |
end end |
| 16:13 |
T4im |
two tests instead of multiple |
| 16:13 |
est31 |
two tests are not enough |
| 16:13 |
est31 |
it wont be secure |
| 16:13 |
paramat |
all nodes of the volume |
| 16:13 |
est31 |
thats the only really secure way to do it |
| 16:14 |
T4im |
why not? 2 nodes span the entire requested area, if one of those two points is in *any* protected area, there is an overlap, done |
| 16:14 |
est31 |
but protection mods should be allowed to give a more efficient solution |
| 16:14 |
est31 |
T4im, not really, what if a protected area is completely inside the requested area, not touching those nodes? |
| 16:14 |
T4im |
ah |
| 16:14 |
T4im |
sneaky |
| 16:15 |
est31 |
or if the area only overlaps with the requested area, but only crosses it from an edge you didnt check |
| 16:15 |
paramat |
indeed |
| 16:16 |
paramat |
anyway, all htis can be done inside a sapling's 'on construct', no 'sapling placer' metadata needed |
| 16:16 |
paramat |
(this) |
| 16:16 |
paramat |
just don't start the timer if it's not allowed to grow |
| 16:17 |
est31 |
thats bad for the users |
| 16:17 |
est31 |
they dont know why their trees dont grow |
| 16:17 |
est31 |
prevent placing completely |
| 16:17 |
paramat |
well yeah somesort of feedback |
| 16:18 |
paramat |
yes prevent placing, just like protection |
| 16:18 |
est31 |
also it might create the expectation that if the player asks the other player to remove the area, the sapling will start to grow |
| 16:19 |
nore |
est31: if we add is_protected_area |
| 16:20 |
nore |
it should be done differently than right now |
| 16:20 |
nore |
i.e. like all other code that does registrations |
| 16:20 |
nore |
because overriding the function causes a lot of problems |
| 16:21 |
est31 |
yeah |
| 16:21 |
T4im |
the problem is, that the iterations are expensive htough |
| 16:21 |
nore |
T4im: iterating through the callbacks? |
| 16:22 |
T4im |
the overriding and passing along is ideally even getting some tail-call optimization on the way |
| 16:22 |
T4im |
nore yes |
| 16:22 |
nore |
it's not more expensive than the function getting nested |
| 16:22 |
nore |
and, remember it's a JIT compiler |
| 16:22 |
nore |
so, it will probably completely inline that and there will be no difference at all |
| 16:23 |
T4im |
unfolding you mean, yea, maybe, but it'll not compete with tail-call optimization |
| 16:26 |
nore |
T4im: it will. |
| 16:26 |
|
twoelk joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:26 |
nore |
it a *loop* |
| 16:26 |
nore |
instead of *nested* recusive calls |
| 16:29 |
|
SloanOnLinux joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:30 |
T4im |
there are no recursive nor nested calls, that's the idea, if every mod behaves (and yes, that could be where it breaks) then is_protected can be a single large function in bytecode |
| 16:49 |
|
Warr1024_ joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:50 |
|
hmmmm joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:56 |
T4im |
one could argue, that there aren't enough protection mods for it to really, so the premature optimization argument might be risen on the tail-calling :D |
| 16:57 |
T4im |
to matter* |
| 17:01 |
Tesseract |
est31: FIX THE EFFING WEBLATE MERGE FAILURES ALREADY! ... please? :-) |
| 17:02 |
est31 |
Tesseract, see the issue |
| 17:03 |
est31 |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4301 |
| 17:03 |
est31 |
I am waiting for feedback from c55 right now |
| 17:03 |
est31 |
whether he has removed the weblate hook or not |
| 17:03 |
Tesseract |
BTW devs, for those who don't know, when you force push weblate gets the first push and spams us via email until it's fixed. |
| 17:04 |
est31 |
the solution is not to not force push :) |
| 17:06 |
Tesseract |
est31: Of course, just so they know the consequences. |
| 17:06 |
est31 |
I'll sit down later today and fix it for now again |
| 17:06 |
est31 |
but i prefer a long term fix, where weblate doesnt update automatically |
| 17:06 |
est31 |
but requires manual updates |
| 17:07 |
est31 |
thats the proper way :) |
| 17:08 |
Tesseract |
Great, 'cause I was just about to set up an auto-delete filter in my mail server. |
| 17:22 |
|
Warr1024 joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:24 |
|
nrzkt joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:31 |
|
ptv joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:34 |
|
Calinou joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:40 |
Fixer |
Tesseract: what is the future of https://github.com/minetest/minetest/pull/3810 ? |
| 17:47 |
|
Taoki[mobile] joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:59 |
paramat |
needs more testing, i really should .. |
| 18:04 |
est31 |
Tesseract, but note that it will probably break again in the future |
| 18:04 |
est31 |
as long as the long term fix isnt applied |
| 18:05 |
|
Calinou joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:11 |
|
Niebieski joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:12 |
|
davisonio joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:50 |
|
Void7 joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:58 |
|
raingloom joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:59 |
|
DI3HARD139 joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:13 |
paramat |
i'll merge #4308 #4309 in a moment |
| 19:13 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4308 -- Treegen: Improve use of signed vs. unsigned integers by paramat |
| 19:13 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4309 -- Correct description of node drop behavior per issue #4283 by duane-r |
| 19:15 |
Fixer |
VanessaE: this also looks like grief by tree |
| 19:15 |
|
TheReaperKing joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:16 |
Fixer |
VanessaE: https://i.imgur.com/8H8kwZA.png |
| 19:20 |
paramat |
merging |
| 19:21 |
|
ssieb joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:26 |
est31 |
T4im, about #4245 |
| 19:26 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4245 -- Builtin/profiler: Replace builtin profiler by t4im |
| 19:27 |
est31 |
I'll squash the commits to one, is the commit msg of the first commit okay for being the one of the merged commit? |
| 19:28 |
T4im |
I can update it to be; Zeno pointed out thought, that it would make bisecting harder if something came up |
| 19:29 |
est31 |
well its all closely related changes |
| 19:29 |
est31 |
and there is no commit of the form "replace all occurences of mine-test in the source code with minetest" |
| 19:30 |
est31 |
or idk, "replace space indents with tabs" |
| 19:34 |
paramat |
merged |
| 19:39 |
Fixer |
after profiler merge I guess ABMs should be labeled in MTG |
| 19:39 |
Fixer |
but what about lbms? |
| 19:40 |
T4im |
it's possible, but not necessary; it'll use the name as fallback (but labels allow you to group them) |
| 19:51 |
|
Darcidride joined #minetest-dev |
| 19:51 |
T4im |
alright, thanks est31 :) |
| 19:52 |
est31 |
thanks for doing the PR :) |
| 19:52 |
T4im |
now I can get to the fun part and add features for a new PR :P |
| 19:52 |
est31 |
:) |
| 19:54 |
T4im |
but #3849 #4220 can be closed then for now, I guess |
| 19:54 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/3849 -- Replace mod profiler |
| 19:54 |
ShadowBot |
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/4220 -- mod_profiling - wrong function prototype for on_punch |
| 19:59 |
paramat |
ok will do |
| 20:02 |
paramat |
oh it's done |
| 20:20 |
|
KaadmY joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:32 |
|
Tmanyo joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:34 |
|
VargaD joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:47 |
est31 |
PTAL https://github.com/est31/minetest/commit/6621daee504bbc6755e0240a5515e16f56199197 |
| 20:47 |
est31 |
paramat, ^ |
| 20:50 |
est31 |
(if there is no reply, gonna push in 30 minutes) |
| 20:50 |
|
rain_gloom joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:12 |
VanessaE |
Fixer: indeed, that's an example of what I was talking about before (btw, don't run moretrees in "plant-like leaves" mode, it is no longer necessary) |
| 21:16 |
|
proller joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:48 |
|
paramat joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:49 |
|
edgrey joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:03 |
|
Miner_48er joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:06 |
|
Player_2 joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:27 |
|
troller joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:34 |
VanessaE |
um, wut? http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/19219569/ |
| 22:38 |
|
davisonio joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:50 |
|
whitephoenix joined #minetest-dev |
| 23:56 |
|
paramat left #minetest-dev |
