New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Skill planner] Advanced weapon upgrade #60

Closed
Slivo-fr opened this Issue Aug 4, 2017 · 10 comments

Comments

3 participants
@Slivo-fr
Collaborator

Slivo-fr commented Aug 4, 2017

Advanced weapon upgrade has an outdated requirement (weapon upgrade 5).
It changed a while ago and only level 4 is now required
##Fixed in
2.31.6

@Slivo-fr Slivo-fr added the bug label Aug 4, 2017

@warlof

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@warlof

warlof Aug 11, 2017

Member

This seems to be related to Database dump which is used to create cache.

The dgmTypeAttributes table which is containing the required skill level seems to be "corrupted" :

TypeID AttributeID valueInt valueFloat
11207 277 5 4

11207 is the typeID for Weapong Upgrade
277 is the attributeID which specify the minimum level of the primary required skill

We can see that the attribute has for some reason two distinct value, 5 and the 4 whereas 4 should be the value for valueInt field.

Member

warlof commented Aug 11, 2017

This seems to be related to Database dump which is used to create cache.

The dgmTypeAttributes table which is containing the required skill level seems to be "corrupted" :

TypeID AttributeID valueInt valueFloat
11207 277 5 4

11207 is the typeID for Weapong Upgrade
277 is the attributeID which specify the minimum level of the primary required skill

We can see that the attribute has for some reason two distinct value, 5 and the 4 whereas 4 should be the value for valueInt field.

@warlof warlof self-assigned this Aug 11, 2017

@Slivo-fr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Slivo-fr

Slivo-fr Aug 11, 2017

Collaborator

Is this value exported from SDE ?

Collaborator

Slivo-fr commented Aug 11, 2017

Is this value exported from SDE ?

@warlof

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@warlof

warlof Aug 11, 2017

Member

yes it is, from version sde-20170613 and it's the same for sde-20170712.

I've check the original YAML file provided by CCP... and it seems to be an issue at their level ^^

This is the content from dgmTypeAttributes.yaml available in sde-20170712

-   attributeID: 277
    typeID: 11207
    valueFloat: 4.0
    valueInt: 5
Member

warlof commented Aug 11, 2017

yes it is, from version sde-20170613 and it's the same for sde-20170712.

I've check the original YAML file provided by CCP... and it seems to be an issue at their level ^^

This is the content from dgmTypeAttributes.yaml available in sde-20170712

-   attributeID: 277
    typeID: 11207
    valueFloat: 4.0
    valueInt: 5
@Slivo-fr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Slivo-fr

Slivo-fr Aug 11, 2017

Collaborator

Here is the issue, it look like we should use the valueFloat.
We add issue about the value to pick previously, when we took over.
If I remember right we prioritized the valueFloat on many points.

Collaborator

Slivo-fr commented Aug 11, 2017

Here is the issue, it look like we should use the valueFloat.
We add issue about the value to pick previously, when we took over.
If I remember right we prioritized the valueFloat on many points.

@Slivo-fr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Slivo-fr

Slivo-fr Aug 11, 2017

Collaborator

Found the change we did again : 3849527

Check the cachecreator.vb line 1883
There must be something like this somewhere on skill requirement

Collaborator

Slivo-fr commented Aug 11, 2017

Found the change we did again : 3849527

Check the cachecreator.vb line 1883
There must be something like this somewhere on skill requirement

@warlof

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@warlof

warlof Aug 11, 2017

Member

Well, here we're in a case where two distinct value are stored for the same attribute valueFloat and valueInt.

We can't choose which of the two should be used.

One solution could be to wait a corrected SDE from CCP
Another is to alter the value inside the dump SDE using a sqlite browser like http://sqlitebrowser.org

Member

warlof commented Aug 11, 2017

Well, here we're in a case where two distinct value are stored for the same attribute valueFloat and valueInt.

We can't choose which of the two should be used.

One solution could be to wait a corrected SDE from CCP
Another is to alter the value inside the dump SDE using a sqlite browser like http://sqlitebrowser.org

@Slivo-fr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Slivo-fr

Slivo-fr Aug 11, 2017

Collaborator

Valuefloat should always been priorized over value int
That's what I learnt back then

Collaborator

Slivo-fr commented Aug 11, 2017

Valuefloat should always been priorized over value int
That's what I learnt back then

@warlof

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@warlof

warlof Aug 11, 2017

Member

hum, I figure it's dangerous to do such change but if you agree to do so, let's do it.

Member

warlof commented Aug 11, 2017

hum, I figure it's dangerous to do such change but if you agree to do so, let's do it.

@Slivo-fr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Slivo-fr

Slivo-fr Aug 11, 2017

Collaborator

I know right, but it's some legacy sde stuff that won't change

Collaborator

Slivo-fr commented Aug 11, 2017

I know right, but it's some legacy sde stuff that won't change

@warlof warlof closed this Aug 11, 2017

@Eshva

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Eshva

Eshva Aug 11, 2017

Collaborator

It's not closed until released.

Collaborator

Eshva commented Aug 11, 2017

It's not closed until released.

@Eshva Eshva reopened this Aug 11, 2017

@Eshva Eshva added this to Done in EveHQ Legacy Aug 11, 2017

@Eshva Eshva closed this Aug 20, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment