#187 closed defect (released)
Error when adding equipment with minNum > unit size
Reported by: | Henri | Owned by: | ibboard |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | WarFoundry 0.1 |
Component: | WarFoundry-GUI-WinForms | Version: | |
Keywords: | unitequipment limit | Cc: | |
Blocked By: | Blocking: |
Description
Apparently if I make this equipment entry, WF doesn't quite like it.
<unitEquipmentItem id="Skorcha" minNum="2" maxNum="4"/>
I assume that it still needs to have the default set to "2" as well?
Attachments (3)
Change History (17)
Changed 10 years ago by
Attachment: | crash7.txt added |
---|
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
Ah, looks like we have an assumption that doesn't always hold. The error is because the percentage box is trying to show "200%", but is limited to values between 0 and 100%.
I'll need to look at how to handle it in more detail so that situations like this work without letting us get in to a mess in the normal "one per trooper" situation. Maybe we need to distinguish "max per unit" and "max per model".
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by
Status: | new → confirmed |
---|
Move tickets to new "confirmed" status to show that they've been checked
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by
Summary: | Error when adding equipment with minNum → Error when adding equipment with minNum > unit size |
---|
comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | confirmed → closed |
comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by
Sorry to reopen, but there seems to something odd in the maths here.
Creating a "every ten models" (10% max) constriction seems to be messing with the percentages. At first it doubled the percentage and failed constantly. I fixed that with a roundDirection = "down".
Now I find that when working with it increasing and reducing the number of items it will "freeze" (it zeroes the items despite that it should allow 3) when having 30 models.
comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by
Resolution: | fixed |
---|---|
Status: | closed → reopened |
Thanks for the data files - always useful when tracking down a bug like this :) I did only commit the fix 37 hours ago at the moment, so you won't have it yet (it'll be in beta 4 :) ) but I'll use those data files to make sure that I've fixed the problems.
Maybe we need a "released" status that comes after "fixed" or something :)
comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by
Keywords: | unitequipment limit added |
---|---|
Owner: | set to ibboard |
Status: | reopened → accepted |
comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | accepted → closed |
comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by
Set fix not released (field is boolean but doesn't take a default "false" value)
comment:10 Changed 10 years ago by
released: | → 1 |
---|
Mark fix as released even though it isn't to set a value
comment:14 Changed 10 years ago by
Resolution: | fixed → released |
---|
Mark fix as released under a previous version
debug text