updated items.xml with initdamage

[EPuncker]

follow up of f58ea81

fields were not dealing damage on stepIn:

[Znote]

The previous commit shouldn't have been merged into 1.4, it changes datapack behavior.
We might want to consider "damage" as "initdamage" for fields that inflict damageconditions.
@nekiro @ninjalulz

[nekiro]

@Znote do we really need to be so strict with backwards compatibility? This is simple xml change it is not used in any script or anything.

[DSpeichert]

Yes

[nekiro]

Well, so right now. There is backwards incompatible field fix in this repo, revert it or merge this.

[Znote]

Well, so right now. There is backwards incompatible field fix in this repo, revert it or merge this.

Can you commit a fix for backwards compatibility?
If this is a field/condition, see if there is an initdamage, if not, see if there is damage and use that as initdamage.
If the initdamage is configured, the above check isn't neccesary and you can go ahead with initdamage.

I might try to look into it later, but since you made this it would be great if you could fix this. I do like your commit, we just gotta keep it versatile. :)

[nekiro]

Well, so right now. There is backwards incompatible field fix in this repo, revert it or merge this.

Can you commit a fix for backwards compatibility?
If this is a field/condition, see if there is an initdamage, if not, see if there is damage and use that as initdamage.
If the initdamage is configured, the above check isn't neccesary and you can go ahead with initdamage.

I might try to look into it later, but since you made this it would be great if you could fix this. I do like your commit, we just gotta keep it versatile. :)

There is a reason I named it initdamage and not damage. Damage is reserved and used for field damage which is issued by condition. Initdamage is not pushed into condition damage list, so to make it backwards compatible you would have to do some dirty hacks. If you find a way you can tell me.

forgottenserver/src/items.cpp

Lines 1211 to 1225 in f58ea81

	} else if (tmpStrValue == "damage") {
	int32_t damage = -pugi::cast<int32_t>(subValueAttribute.value());
	if (start > 0) {
	std::list<int32_t> damageList;
	ConditionDamage::generateDamageList(damage, start, damageList);
	for (int32_t damageValue : damageList) {
	conditionDamage->addDamage(1, ticks, -damageValue);
	}
	start = 0;
	} else {
	conditionDamage->addDamage(count, ticks, damage);
	}
	}
	}

[Znote]

#3128 should be merged before this, and this PR can then remove any additions where initdamage is identical to ordinary damage. (and only include changes where initDamage is different to damage).

[EPuncker]

#3128 should be merged before this, and this PR can then remove any additions where initdamage is identical to ordinary damage. (and only include changes where initDamage is different to damage).

done