News:

Bored?  Looking to kill some time?  Want to chat with other SMF users?  Join us in IRC chat or Discord

Main Menu

When we see 2.1 beta 1 in package parse

Started by Rumpa, November 22, 2014, 09:51:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rumpa

Hi guys.

It's just query When we see 2.1 beta 1 in package parse.

Thank you.

Illori

when we will be accepting mods on the mod site for 2.1.

Rumpa

Quote from: Illori on November 22, 2014, 10:29:06 AM
when we will be accepting mods on the mod site for 2.1.
Hope it will be very soon.

Arantor

Considering the changes I would not be encouraging modders to be touching SMF 2.1 for a while anyway simply because of the effort required to update mods properly, only to have it changed again by the next beta.

I learned this the hard way with maintaining mods through 2.0 RC2, RC3, RC4, RC5 and final. Not for nothing that I largely stopped writing mods after that for a long, long time.

Kindred

I can state that it will NOT be "very soon".
Слaва
Украинi

Please do not PM, IM or Email me with support questions.  You will get better and faster responses in the support boards.  Thank you.

"Loki is not evil, although he is certainly not a force for good. Loki is... complicated."

Antes


Night09

If Mods were made just using the hooks wouldnt most things be a bit more resilient than template edits? Im just thinking that waiting what could be a long time to do any mod work isnt a good choice. Some may choose to wait and others might like to dabble a bit.

If it was the case then maintenance of mods after an update should be minimal. Just thoughts on it.

Arantor

To a point, sure, but don't forget the templates are quite a bit different too.

Night09

Quote from: Arantor on November 22, 2014, 05:46:01 PM
To a point, sure, but don't forget the templates are quite a bit different too.

True bit if anyone wanting to make or upgrade mods done it the right way first time round then eventually all 2.1 mods would be less trouble to maintain or make changes in future. Also shouldnt it reduce mod clash with bad edits killing common code points in templates leading to millions of how do I edit this error?

Arantor

Yes it should reduce the hassle, if mod authors actually use the facilities on offer. Already some of the facilities there are get misused quite drastically.

Night09

If a mod passes admin approval they could be graded A or B class mods based on following guidelines or just complying for safety ect.

Maybe an addition to the Mod evaluation page used here for admin could include an option for grade. Then users would know if a mod is likely to cause an issue later down the line rather than play detective looking for the offending piece of code.

A = Uses all requisites of SMF integrating function or feature to SMF
B = Meets requirements for SMF but does not follow strict Mod code guidelines

Arantor

All the mods on the site did, at least at first time, meet the guidelines.

Two problems occur: there are mods that met the old guidelines but not the newer ones, and there are mods that meet even the newer guidelines but it never occurs to people that things might be possible.

For example, at least two of the things in my gallery are in the realms of 'I don't think that's possible with hooks'. Like doing things where hooks don't even exist. So I sort of make use of other hooks. Not ideal, no, but does the job. Fairly sure I wouldn't quite pass the 'strict code guidelines' in that respect ;D

Night09

Maybe on parts where hooks dont exist then your technically not breaking the code rules. Where they would be broken is if you make changes that can be done with an inbuilt hook function. I agree some mods would need edits outside the control of the code in the templates but in those cases as long as its safe it should pass for A as theres no inbuilt alternative.

Arantor

Which is precisely where the definition falls flat.

Who says whether it can be done by an inbuilt hook function or not? Because we play by *that* rule, almost any mod gets invalidated since you'd be surprised what can be done with sufficient ingenuity in *that* department ;D

Night09


Arantor

Basically, never use me as the benchmark of what is sane or appropriate because I am neither sane nor appropriate. I do the crazy things no-one else does... solely because I *can*.

Night09

Quote from: Arantor on November 22, 2014, 07:16:17 PM
Basically, never use me as the benchmark of what is sane or appropriate because I am neither sane nor appropriate. I do the crazy things no-one else does... solely because I *can*.

Luckily most of us dont fall into the insane code category but really some basic compliance would be good, not saying it will happen mind. ;)

Arantor

Therein lies the challenge again: what point is 'basic code compliance' when the scale runs from 'can be done with hooks with even basic knowledge' to 'can only be done with hooks if you're completely insane' through to 'can be done with hooks only if you happen to be Arantor, Suki, Dragooon etc.'

margarett

I'll reply to that, as I've been involved in MOD approval:
Quote'basic code compliance'
is the usual approval method. Nothing unusual here

Quote'can only be done with hooks if you're completely insane'
Not common and usually dealt with help from our developers.

Quotecan be done with hooks only if you happen to be Arantor, Suki, Dragooon
Is probably approved "directly", after a minimum code and functionality check.

Easy, right? ;)
Se forem conduzir, não bebam. Se forem beber... CHAMEM-ME!!!! :D

QuoteOver 90% of all computer problems can be traced back to the interface between the keyboard and the chair

live627

Quote from: Arantor on November 22, 2014, 07:16:17 PM
Basically, never use me as the benchmark of what is sane or appropriate because I am neither sane nor appropriate. I do the crazy things no-one else does... solely because I *can*.
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" (multiple authors)

Advertisement: