Allow ReEnable portal with Line_SetPortalTarget also for Visual&Teleport

[gwHero]

Changing a portal destination at runtime with Line_SetPortalTarget after it was temporarily disabled with destination 0 (zero) only worked for PORTF_INTERACTIVE and not for PORTT_VISUAL & PORTT_TELEPORT, while the WIKI states that it's only not allowed for static portals (type 3 & 4, see https://zdoom.org/wiki/Line_SetPortal).
Actually the only thing that was missing was restoring the mFlags for the Visual & Teleport types.

I have tested this change with a build on my system with a test wad which I will upload to the ZDoom forums. Since this is my first contribution the GZDoom code ever I will humble await the verdict of the more experienced programmers :)
PortalMAP01.zip

I have included a small testwad that disables a portal after map startup; the switch in the foreground will bring it back, and with the switch in the background it can be hidden again. This did not work with the original code for Visual & Teleport types.

[alexey-lysiuk]

Why did you changed so many lines? You can just add the following at line 469:

else if (port->mType == PORTT_VISUAL || port->mType == PORTT_TELEPORT)
{
	port->mFlags = port->mDefFlags;
}

[gwHero]

Thanks for the fast reply! Actually you're right; I also added brackets to the existing "else if" and the one I added - it's more of a practice I am used to in my own projects to enhance the readability, but indeed some more code.

[gwHero]

I see now indeed that Github says that I changed 26 lines but that's a bit exaggerated; it's because of the inserted brackets. Nevertheless: if you prefer without the brackets, do you want me to redo the pull request without them?

[alexey-lysiuk]

Yes, I prefer to reduce amount of changes to minimum. Tracking who changed something and why is easier when no pointless modifications were introduced.
Of course it’s up to Graf to disagree with this and merge it as is. Although existing style is easier to read to me.
Actually you need to wait for his opinion anyway as I’m not quite familiar with portals.

[gwHero]

Ah ok, I'll wait to see what Graf thinks about the change in relation to the portal functionality. Maybe he will reject it anyway. If not, and he agrees with the change, it's of course fine with me to remove the brackets which I added when I was debugging the code to see what the problem was with the Line_SetPortalTarget - my personal preference is of course far less important than the tracking of changes - which is a very good point.

Thank you for the feedback!

[coelckers]

I have to agree with alexey-lysiuk on the formatting issue.. The more you change the harder it is to review a change. And the indentation here is totally pointless.

[alexey-lysiuk]

As #373 fixes the same issue without altering code formatting I’m closing this PR.

[gwHero]

Okay, I'll pay intention next time not to change indentations/brackets and such to make the actual change in functionality more readible. Hopefully #373 will get passed, because the wad I'm working on needs this change.