Conversation
|
LGTM |
| * General | ||
| * Fixed normal maps on several materials | ||
| * Items | ||
| * Fixed item teirs or somethoiawurbhgkamng |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not fully accustomed to the team culture, but is this okay or do we want something professional / useful for users?
| ### 0.6.31 | ||
| * General | ||
| * Mul-T GM skins are fixed too! All Vanilla skins are back! | ||
| * Temporarily disabled wavy/shaky text on certain logbooks and item descriptions due to memory leaks |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably nobody cares for retroactively adding missed changes to previous versions, but adding a line in 0.6.32 mentioning which versions have been affected would be useful to the two people out there who read changelogs, lol.
| inventory.itemAcquisitionOrder.Clear(); | ||
| inventory.permanentItemStacks.Clear(); | ||
| inventory.channeledItemStacks.Clear(); | ||
| inventory.tempItemsStorage.tempItemStacks.Clear(); // ????????????????????????????????? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we should be touching the channeled items. Inventory.CopyItemsFrom only copies permanents stacks, so if the target has channeled items, there is some other source responsible for giving and taking away. We may want to keep an eye on the inventory methods in case the change internally in the future.
This is probably a very niche scenario, but we're caching the target's original permanent stacks. There might be a scenario where some source removes stacks that legitimately belonged to the target's original permanent items before we reach this method. Something like involving Mithrix P4 item steal is the only that comes to mind but we may want to be as future proof as possible. Would it be better if instead we cached what items we give to the befriended unit and then just remove those?
3 participants
No description provided.