Conversation
notfood
added
fix
Member
|
I think I prefer having the warning rather than the guessing. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
For 1.6
My PR #576 was flawed. I saw a pattern and ran with it, relying too much on the compiler to catch any errors. My bad.
Thanks to @Tick-git for highlighting the issue. Many of these
CodeInstructionoperands weren't actuallyMethodInfo. The problem is that they shared common classes (a lot wereFieldInfowhich extends fromMethodInfo), so the compiler let it all slide.I've gone through this twice to ensure I'm casting to the correct classes now.
According to Tick this should resolve #590.
Note: Tick also pointed out that Harmony provides a bunch of extensions for doing these comparisons (for example
.Calls(MethodInfo method)or.LoadsField(FieldInfo field)). I looked briefly at updating the code to use these, but I'm not confident enough with the Reflection and patches to ensure it's doing the right thing (for example.Calls()makes checks on theinstruction.opcodebefore doing an equality check)