Incidencia #45268

Server-side CMA info to PACKET_WEB_CITY_INFO_ADDITION

Abrir Fecha: 2022-07-29 23:56 Última actualización: 2022-10-22 09:18

Informador:
Propietario:
Tipo:
Estado:
Cerrado
Componente:
Hito:
Prioridad:
5 - Medium
Gravedad:
5 - Medium
Resolución:
Fixed
Fichero:
3

Details

Some time ago we removed completely unused server-side CMA info from PACKET_CITY_INFO.

Now it's requested back for the freeciv-web. https://github.com/freeciv/freeciv-web/issues/506

Let's reintroduce it so that it's in PACKET_WEB_CITY_INFO_ADDITION. We can later move it, of course, if other clients start needing it.

Depends on #45267

Ticket History (3/12 Histories)

2022-07-29 23:56 Updated by: cazfi
  • New Ticket "Server-side CMA info to PACKET_WEB_CITY_INFO_ADDITION" created
2022-08-23 03:01 Updated by: cazfi
  • Propietario Update from (Ninguno) to cazfi
  • Resolución Update from Ninguno to Accepted
Comentario

Attached patch applies on top of #45319

2022-08-28 05:09 Updated by: cazfi
Comentario

Client -> server communication part -> #45485

2022-08-28 06:23 Updated by: cazfi
  • Resolución Update from Accepted to Ninguno
Comentario

Current patch always send cma_enabled as TRUE; even when it should be FALSE.

2022-08-29 08:37 Updated by: cazfi
  • Resolución Update from Ninguno to Accepted
Comentario

- Send correct cma_enabled value

2022-08-31 14:19 Updated by: cazfi
  • Estado Update from Open to Cerrado
  • Resolución Update from Accepted to Fixed
2022-10-22 08:28 Updated by: lexxie9952
Comentario

This confuses me. Request clarification for believed-to-be-extant-and-stated-goal of a 3.2 client-agnostic server capable of supporting rather sizeable FCW community, its client, and ability to do its rulesets (albeit with possible adjustments to re-code some effects/mechanics.)

"we removed completely unused server-side CMA info from PACKET_CITY_INFO"... was not completely unused unless FCW was invisibly considered no longer a project stakeholder without notice

I realise sometimes tech debt will happen when FCW implements things on its own before upstream, but, in this case I wonder if it's a case of upstream not caring whether it makes tech debt unnecessarily. Which packet takes what is relatively minor, I understand, but perhaps I'm trying to open a larger conversation on preventing a not-ideal status quo from becoming worse, and get awareness back for unified client agnostic server and not try too much to punish innovators in other forks who generate ideas, report bugs, inspire similar features upstream later, and are looking for cleaning/organising the ecosystem better.

2022-10-22 08:43 Updated by: cazfi
Comentario

Reply To lexxie9952

"we removed completely unused server-side CMA info from PACKET_CITY_INFO"... was not completely unused unless FCW was invisibly considered no longer a project stakeholder without notice

Besides the fact that as far as I know FCW has not taken a single step towards your stated goals of becoming compatible with upstream freeciv, this one was made by mistake - the packet in question was not labeled as a freeciv-web one, and it was completely unused by regular clients. But as of HEAD, information is now in proper _WEB_ -packet.

2022-10-22 09:18 Updated by: cazfi
Comentario

Reply To cazfi

Reply To lexxie9952

"we removed completely unused server-side CMA info from PACKET_CITY_INFO"... was not completely unused unless FCW was invisibly considered no longer a project stakeholder without notice

Besides the fact that as far as I know FCW has not taken a single step towards your stated goals of becoming compatible with upstream freeciv

In general; I'm not aware of any changes in situation since this was last brought up. So, everything I wrote in Freeciv Co-operative in April still holds, so that would be the starting point of any further discussion.

Editar

You are not logged in. I you are not logged in, your comment will be treated as an anonymous post. » Entrar