Skip to content
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

Startup Crash, Something to do with Tinker's #161

Open
Rambonata opened this issue May 29, 2019 · 5 comments
Open

Startup Crash, Something to do with Tinker's #161

Rambonata opened this issue May 29, 2019 · 5 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@Rambonata
Copy link

I've spent two days trying to figure out what was wrong, and the only time I was able to run Minecraft was when I disabled the Tinker's integration.

crash-2019-05-29_14.54.48-client.txt

@dshadowwolf
Copy link
Contributor

...and I thought we'd squashed this - what has happened is you have turned off, say, 'Coal' but still have 'Steel' active (this is an example) and have found a bug I thought we'd stomped out before releasing -rc2. Possibly linked to some issues around Prismarine.

@YaibaToKen
Copy link
Contributor

@dshadowwolf The alloy logic goes through MMDLib, right? Would we be better off adding a general check to see if all ingredients and outputs exist before registering an alloy in MMDLib or would we prefer a check in each of the Metals family mods?

@dshadowwolf
Copy link
Contributor

the checks for some bits should be centralized, yes, but there should also be checks in individual mods

@YaibaToKen
Copy link
Contributor

Perhaps a check on MMDLIb's side, with a log mentioning what ingredients are missing, the alloy name and the mod trying to register it. Does this sound feasable?

@dshadowwolf
Copy link
Contributor

I had thought we had checks (remaining from before the split) in all the mods using the integration, actually - knowing that it isn't there is... annoying. I'd say this should be easy, but I do believe the integration works in raw Ingredients/ItemStacks and not in MMD's internal representations, so I don't know that we'd have an easy way to check.

Perhaps we need to extend the integration to include a means to pass checks and such to the code ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants