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

LTTP: sort of use new options system #3764

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 29, 2024
Merged

LTTP: sort of use new options system #3764

merged 2 commits into from
Nov 29, 2024

Conversation

Berserker66
Copy link
Member

What is this fixing or adding?

Makes LttP use the new options system in a way it should continue working when the old one is gone.

How was this tested?

I made deprecatedict raise on error and got a generation

@Berserker66 Berserker66 changed the title Lttp: sort of use new options system LTTP: sort of use new options system Aug 10, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the waiting-on: peer-review Issue/PR has not been reviewed by enough people yet. label Aug 10, 2024
@Exempt-Medic Exempt-Medic added is: maintenance Regular updates to requirements and utilities that do not fix bugs or change/add features. is: refactor/cleanup Improvements to code/output readability or organizization. labels Aug 22, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@qwint qwint left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

pure code review, did not run gens/tests/etc.

options dataclass looks good,
did some testing around the old options re-establisher format in a python shell and checked docs and it all looks functional

of note though, this will override the deprecateDicts that core writes, so opening up potential issues of crashing weird if other worlds share that option name and use the old api, not being able to track well what lttp options are being got through multiworld.option_name still, etc.
but I believe that was known when this bandaid was proposed so still approving it

Copy link
Member

@NewSoupVi NewSoupVi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm approving this but I think I'd like this to be the last thing we merge before actually hard deprecating the options system, because of that thing qwint mentioned

@NewSoupVi
Copy link
Member

NewSoupVi commented Sep 18, 2024

Which, as of a few seconds ago, this is the only PR remaining. So, whenever we wanna merge #3284, we can merge this first and then that

@Exempt-Medic Exempt-Medic added waiting-on: author Issue/PR is waiting for feedback or changes from its author. and removed waiting-on: peer-review Issue/PR has not been reviewed by enough people yet. labels Sep 20, 2024
@Exempt-Medic Exempt-Medic added waiting-on: other Issue/PR is waiting for something else, like another PR. and removed waiting-on: author Issue/PR is waiting for feedback or changes from its author. labels Nov 28, 2024
@NewSoupVi NewSoupVi merged commit 30b4144 into main Nov 29, 2024
28 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
is: maintenance Regular updates to requirements and utilities that do not fix bugs or change/add features. is: refactor/cleanup Improvements to code/output readability or organizization. waiting-on: other Issue/PR is waiting for something else, like another PR.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants