Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Unified Mod Version Tracking \ Troubleshooting Proposal

  1. #1
    Germanicu5's Avatar Will buy spare time...
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Not Zee Germany
    Posts
    2,119

    Default Unified Mod Version Tracking \ Troubleshooting Proposal

    Unified Mod Version Tracking \ Troubleshooting



    The purpose of creating this thread is encouraging twcenter modders to introduce a common version tracking system, that'll make everybody's life easier and significantly reduce time needed to identify some common issues.


    This is particularly important when dealing with different matters in Bug Reports & Technical Help sections.

    Tracking is done via campaign script code, I suggest one common spot for it - that'd be either just below "script" line or mod features list.

    Also preserving common layout (like one presented below) would create some modding "integrity".

    The main benefit is a shot at instant problem identification - let's say that somebody reports a TATW 3.1 CTD, then this person uploads a log file, which says "TATW 3.0 with a messy submod" or "TATW 2.1". You can tell them what was wrong or send them to appropriate forum right away, while often such info isn't supplied.

    This feature serves as a basic check for UAC-inflicted mess as well.

    How to track currently used mod version via campaign script.


    Pattern:
    Code:
    script (example)
    
    ;;;;;;;Print Info
    log always Third Age: Total War 3.1 . Please upload log when reporting  issues. If your log shows a different mod version than desired, this  might be installation issue. For support please visit Bug Reports &  Technical  Help at  http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1152
    log always Very Good Submod v2.1 (...)
    log always Not so comprehensive submod v0.1 (...)
    
    monitor_event GameReloaded
    log always Third Age: Total War 3.1 . Please upload log when reporting issues. If your log shows a different mod version than desired, this might be installation issue. For support please visit Bug Reports & Technical  Help at http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1152
    log always Very Good Submod v2.1 (...)
    log always Not so comprehensive submod v0.1 (...)
    end_monitor
    ;;;;;;;
    This code is always printed, even when only error reporting is on.
    Result:
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    21:54:21.242 [game.script] [always] Third Age: Total War 3.1 . Please upload log when reporting issues. If your log shows a different mod version than desired, this might be installation issue. For support please visit Bug Reports & Technical Help at http:/www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1152
    21:54:21.243 [game.script] [always] Very Good Submod v2.1 (...)
    21:54:21.243 [game.script] [always] Not so comprehensive submod v0.1 (...)


    The "log" or "log_counter" commands can also be also useful if you want to monitor particular parts of executed code.

    I hope this practise spreads and we all have less work.

    Regards

    P.S. Obviously deleting all .rwm files and .bin files on each mod start is always a good option as well. This is pretty efficient code that deletes all .rwm files found in maps dir and its subfolders.
    Code:
    del /q data\text\*.bin
    del /q /s data\world\maps\*.rwm
    I have no memory of this place.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Unified Mod Version Tracking \ Troubleshooting Proposal

    Neat idea, however the practical flaw is that it relies on everyone to do their bit properly. Suppose that a submod introduces new traits, but also mucks up some triggers/effects for stock traits of TATW. That's just a few EDCT/EDCA changes, so the submod is released as a single ZIP file containing -- you guessed it -- just the EDCT/EDCA.

    What I am saying is that such a convention isn't a bad thing per se and it could work well for astute modders, but the convention isn't reliable when you add the end users into the mix.

    One can work around this, to an extent, by computing hashes of the files and requiring that for a given type of problem the user uploads a give set of files and then compare hashes. (SHA256/SHA512 would work well.)
    -Tellos Athenaios
    CUF tool - XIDX - PACK tool - SD tool - EVT tool

    ὁ δ᾽ ἠλίθιος ὣσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει” – Kratinos in Dionysalexandros.

  3. #3
    Germanicu5's Avatar Will buy spare time...
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Not Zee Germany
    Posts
    2,119

    Default Re: Unified Mod Version Tracking \ Troubleshooting Proposal

    For me having even the slightest indication of main mod version being used is a huge bonus, it uncovers many of most common issues (UAC in particular).

    Also I've seen or participated in troubleshooting discussions that ended, after at least several posts from each side, with "Oh yea, I was actually playing a game I started with a different mod version".

    Hashes seem to be a bit too advanced for common use.

    Regards
    I have no memory of this place.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Unified Mod Version Tracking \ Troubleshooting Proposal

    I get that first bit. It's not a bad idea, but having seen my share of bug report/tech issues for EB1 I think what you *really* want is to know is if your mod is not just properly up to date, but also left unmodified. With EB1 validation we could tell which hotfixes were actually applied, and which ones were not...

    Such reporting functionality could be largely performed by validation tools (you might have heard of the EB1 validation tool Bovi wrote), or as part of, say, the Infracta launcher.

    What I don't get is why hashes would be “advanced” for common use? One computes a hash once, and stores it somewhere. Then if you are checking a particular file you compute the hash again and check if they match? It's all gibberish to the user, yes, but it is much more informative to the modders -- the user only cares about whether or not the modders are going to bother with tech support. This is a question that could be answered by the same tool that performs the validation?
    -Tellos Athenaios
    CUF tool - XIDX - PACK tool - SD tool - EVT tool

    ὁ δ᾽ ἠλίθιος ὣσπερ πρόβατον βῆ βῆ λέγων βαδίζει” – Kratinos in Dionysalexandros.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •