Regression testing of latest master #1796
Comments
|
I've been regularly testing |
|
I've been using it, with a few custom mods most of which are now included into the master. The change I mostly use which isn't included in the master is fighting an amphibious assault automatically if there is only one. The only thing which annoys me in the current master is that we suddenly have to select which territory we're going to produce sea units from if there are two possibilities. Previously the engine was able to figure this out so I don't know what changed that it can't? |
|
@simon33-2 Actually the engine wasn't able to, it just randomly picked one. This ended up often leading it not choosing the one the user intended and then they not be able to say set land units in one of the territories. It also affects any maps which have 'fighters can be moved to new carriers' as there was no way to select which factory to use for a carrier. See #350 |
|
@simon33-2 I thought a little more about this change and decided to add more conditions on when to prompt users for territory selection: #1803 |
|
In the past, if you are producing 4 units in global US1 to SZ101 at peace you could always then produce a land unit in either territory. Just tested it on build 3627. It would update the previous sea placement to facilitate the new placement, reducing the existing placement and adding another one from the other possible territory. |
|
If that made sense. |
|
I'm getting an NPE with the current master when I load an existing save game and click "Start PBEM/PBF game". triplea.engine.version.bin:1.9 |
|
@simon33-2 That NPE should be fixed now in current master. There needed to be a few null checks to handle backwards compatibility of new data components that weren't initialized. |
|
@simon33-2 Your global example does appear to work fine and properly adjust. But here is a very similar example on 270 BC where you can try to place the boats first then place land units and it doesn't work: Not sure exactly when it does and doesn't adjust. |
|
@ron-murhammer Not sure if you get notifications for closed PRs, but please see this comment when you have time. |
|
Closing in favor of #1768 |
Has anyone tested out the latest master? Given it's been so long since we had a stable master, I think we need to invest some time to make sure the latest plays well. If so, we can mark it as a stable and then get back into the cadence of testing things incrementally and updating the stable number more in step with PR merges.
Being incremental like that I think is important so we avoid the "test-the-world-by-hand" scenario. With incremental updates, and testing each PR very thoroughly, my hope was we could avoid the need for full regression testing.
With that said, I'd like to get the latest master marked as a stable if we can, and then put up a lobby message to encourage folks to download the latest for the bug fixes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: