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

Changes on butterflies placement checks #3116

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from
Closed

Changes on butterflies placement checks #3116

wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

JoseDouglas26
Copy link
Contributor

@JoseDouglas26 JoseDouglas26 commented May 13, 2024

Fixes #2987 (by using minetest.item_place)
Fixes #3102 (by renaming the parameters)

@JoseDouglas26
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry, I made a commit to the master of my fork to resolve another issue and it ended up in this PR too. Now this PR can fix #3102

mods/butterflies/init.lua Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
mods/butterflies/init.lua Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
mods/default/functions.lua Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
mods/butterflies/init.lua Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@SmallJoker SmallJoker left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I found that butterflies now do replace grass. In master, the butterfly is put to pointed_thing.above. However, in this PR can be avoided by using sneak + place (like with any other node placement).

Works for me.

@Emojigit
Copy link
Contributor

Emojigit commented Jun 3, 2024

I submitted another PR, #3125, which uses the engine's routine to handle butterfly and firefly placement and catching. Every possible interaction exception can be handled by having everything cared for by the engine.

@JoseDouglas26
Copy link
Contributor Author

JoseDouglas26 commented Jun 3, 2024

So can I close this (again)?

@Emojigit
Copy link
Contributor

Emojigit commented Jun 3, 2024

So can I close this (again)?

This PR has been approved by core developers, so I would suggest letting them decide.

@JoseDouglas26
Copy link
Contributor Author

I will close this PR. #3125 will be better thant that one

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