I've been working on the offensive subs submerge/withdraw step and discovered that my idea of having a unified valid() check that works for both getNames and execute won't work.

In the offensive subs submerge/withdraw step, execute shouldn't run if there is a destroyer present. But getNames is called at the beginning of the round and there might be a destroyer present that will die before execute is called. If getNames doesn't return the submerge/withdraw step, then an error will occur.

I was actually able to trigger this error from the master branch when Submersible Subs is false, Sub Retreat Before Battle is false, and a destroyer is present at the beginning of the round but then is destroyed during the round. If Submersible Subs is true and Sub Retreat Before Battle is false, then this error doesn't occur because it doesn't check for destroyers.

I'm going to be removing valid() as a public method from the BattleStep interface. Instead, getNames and execute will do their own internal valid check. This check might be the same or different, depending on the step.

One other option I thought of is if we can change the behavior so it always has some sort of UI update. In essence the toast would actually be doing that. I think the options are:

If there's no feedback suggestions then will give (2) a go as a toast likely will not hurt. (3) is an option, initially I think it's not great to have controls appearing and disappearing.

@LaFayette cool! I guess we shall see. Either way this was way better than the last crash. Great Stuff!

@LaFayette I can't speak to a lot of what you are proposing as I am a Luddist by nature and ignorance... my contributions or scope of contributions is limited to my even more limited skill-set.

But I am eager to help where the axes of time and skill intersect.

@LaFayette All good hopefully another year will suffice since no one wanted to keep warclub 😉

Perhaps when we get closer to a release (as we happen to be now), the spreadsheet will be useful for coordination to hone in on a stable version

The biggest problem with using a "global email" is that if we did that without any authentication, one could use our service to spam another ones email account and create something like a dos attack.
So in any case we'd need authentication, which might defeat its purpose already.

Thank You Triplea

Couldn't find the previous thank you thread so...been a while and just wanted to say I really appreciate what redrum, Roix, Dan Van Atta, ssloff ( haven't seen you in a while hope all is good ). You guys been kicking ass.

Thanks to prastle, panther, cernel, hepps and well... there's a whole bunch of you 🙂

Thanks for making triplea cool. It makes a few people happy and they then make more people happy 🙂

Peace Out

Rock On TripleA

@hepps I would say no on holding off on future re-designs. What I'm proposing is a next step that is almost required before we can do a larger redesign. Most of the changes are in the code. Meanwhile, it's pretty trivial and very easy now to alter the screen and which buttons are where, so I can incorporate feedback on that quite readily : )