TripleA development
-
Well, with global it's only moderately broken; the problem only applies in lobby bots, and most people are satisfied with fixing it via using edit every round. It's infrequent enough that doing so isn't too onerous. It does make TWW very hard to play in lobby bots, as there's alot of unit transfer triggers in it. Should I apply some label to the pertinent bug report on the matter? Since it's something that afaik only you can address, you should be the one deciding on the priority level.
-
So far as taking care of problems goes, there are a few map issues/PRs here that could be looked at, and several can probably be merged. They may not be in the main game, but they do make issues in the main game when they have problems.
-
@ff03k64 I don't understand "They may not be in the main game, but they do make issues in the main game when they have problems". How can they "make issues in the main game", when they are not in the main game?
Should a rule guru look over them first before a developer starts? -
@LaFayette Can you create a guide on how to test such bot issues? I would have no idea how to analyze them.
-
@beelee, @Panther , @RogerCooper
Would you please provide your comment on the to-be TripleA issue process flow I have tried to draw?
-
@frigoref this is awesome! but I think you mean "Rules clear?" "No" goes to Guru
-
What @djabwana says.
Also I stumble a bit over the "rules clear?" question.
In more than a decade of rules discussions I have learnt that despite rules might be "clear" to someone that "clearness" must not necessarily cover reality.
So maybe it would be a good idea that someone familiar with the rules looks at every issue that touches rules questions (what actually has been practiced for years, IIRC).
-
@frigoref Good basis to clarify who should do what!
If you want to store graphs in a markdown (.md) file, you might want to use mermaid or PlantUML, see https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/markdown.html#preview
-
@rainova I have played around with it a bit, but it I think the repeat loops are always on the wrong side causing the diagram flow to be more confusing that it actually is:
-
@frigoref You should add an intermediate step after the "rules clear?" part.
I think the current label is almost worthless as it is usually added without clarifying what needs clarification, so it is basically an encouragement to add more and more text to the issue trying to catch whatever is being unclear to whoever.
If a rule is not clear to everyone, the person that feels so should clarify exactly what needs to be clarified and then you can actually clarify the rule, so you need an intermediate thing between the "rules clear?" and "clarify rule" steps.
Moreover, the "clarify rule" step should direct back before the "rules clear?" step, because having clarified a rule doesn't imply that is actually fully clarified. So the clarify rule should direct to "update issue".
Moreover, I've no idea how an issue can be complete if it is not clear, but maybe you mean that just satisfies the minimal requirements of reporting. I think you should clarify what you mean by "complete".
-
@cernel You are right this process flow is not detailed enough for what exactly to do in which situation. However, that was not the goal as this would limit the main goal of clarity of different parts and participants for the whole process.
Basically the Issue Dispatcher should check and provide labels based on which the other roles should take actions. For sure just a label is not enough and additional request/questions should be also added by him/her.
-
May I ask for your help to create a profile for each of the following roles we have identified so far:
- Developer with merge rights ( @RoiEX, @LaFayette )
- Developer w/o merge rights ( @RaiNova, me )
- Issue manager ( @beelee )
- Map makers ( @RogerCooper )
- Rule gurus ( @Panther )
- Forum moderators ( @Cernel )
If someone would like to chip in, please feel free to come on board and assist.
My idea of a profile (that we could gather in a new profile folder in https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/tree/master/docs would look as follows:
Title: Developer w/o merge rights
Description: Foot soldier who works on the code to fix bugs and add new features.
Skillset- Experience with object oriented programming language (preferable Java)
- github account to contribute
Contributions
- Bug fixing
- Implementing new features
- Code cleaning
- Code review
How to become one: Setup your system and check our development processes
Before we start: What do you all think about this structure?
-
@frigoref you could have Panther and Cernel for rules. Cernel would qualify for maps as well and probably Panther too. My guess is new devs don't have merge rights is because it could mess stuff up if they went solo mode. My impression is you guys are all cool and probably wouldn't be a problem, but as i've said before I just update the maps and don't mess with anything else.
Idk, It's good to have a "structure" . It seems there already is one of sorts though ? Idk
Foot soldier seems a bit harsh : ) Reminds me of my buddy deploying when I asked him his job. "Bullet Stopper" was his response. Fortunately he made it back ok. Or not blown up anyway.
Edit
But yea it'd be fine by me. Didn't mean to sound overly negative or anything : ) -
@beelee thanks for your feedback!
I take it you are okay to provide a profile in the structure suggested.
Correct?The participants you have suggested can now reply to the parts you say they'd be suited.
Last, the fine-tuning of the profile content I've suggested is maybe something for the PR process.
-
@frigoref heh heh yea Idk about issue dispatcher. I just try not to get too frustrated with git. I'm someone who only knows how to add but it's a multiplication problem lol
Sure the other guys will chime in. Been quiet here lately
-
@beelee Thank you
@frigoref For years (some more than a decade), these have been my playgrounds:
- qualified answers to rules questions (core game rules)
- engine testing
- bug reporting
- Github issue investigating, accepting or denying (when rules / gameplay related)
- end user support for engine and map-related issues
- end user support for software issues on the user's side
- end user support for some core procedures on Github
- end user support for some aspects of map creating and tweaking
- forum administration (some special tasks)
- forum moderation
In the past I have understood myself as being sort of an "interface" between development/developers and end user.
Not sure how that fits to any profile.
-
@panther the profiles are kind of the facets a contributor can have and they should lead as guide for people who are willing to contribute to a point where they can actually do the contribution they want to.
It is very welcome if contributors as yourself match to multiple facets (=profiles).At the moment my goal is to complete the list of profiles, get a common structure, get support to fill them out and finalize them in a group.
Would you be willing to take over the profile of a rules guru? -
@frigoref said in TripleA development:
Would you be willing to take over the profile of a rules guru?
Yes, of course.
-
@frigoref heh heh "guru" just makes me chuckle
-
Please have a look for my started contribution page, give feedback and fill the "tbd" parts according to our list:
- Developer with merge rights ( @RoiEX, @LaFayette )
- Developer w/o merge rights ( @RaiNova, me )
- Issue manager ( @beelee )
- Map makers ( @RogerCooper )
- Rule gurus ( @Panther )
- Forum moderators ( @Cernel )
