Hercules
Hercules copied to clipboard
HerculesWS
Hercules Ultimate Storage System
Pull Request Prelude
- [x] I have followed proper Hercules code styling.
- [x] I have read and understood the contribution guidelines before making this PR.
- [x] I am aware that this PR may be closed if the above-mentioned criteria are not fulfilled.
Changes Proposed
Design
Implementation of the Hercules Ultimate Storage System Storages can now be created through a configuration file that describes their attributes. Example storage configuration:
{
Id: (int) (required|unique) Unique Identifier
Name: (string) (required) Name of the storage sent to the client.
Capacity: (int) (required) Maximum capacity of the storage.
}
Additional storages are handled with dynamic arrays that will save a tonne of memory when created, as opposed to a design in which they were implemented using fixed length arrays. In simple terms, a storage of 600 items would approximately cost the same amount of memory as 600 storages with 1 item each. They are saved in the same storage database (SQL) as the original separating them by a storage identifier. An infinite number of storages can be created, there are no limits. The current design implementation only allow saving/loading of approximately 1600 items per storage due to packet size limits.
PS. Make sure you apply SQL upgrades for this patch!
Access Modes
Storage access modes can be set through the openstorage builtin command.
STORAGE_ACCESS_VIEW // View storage only
STORAGE_ACCESS_GET // Allow getting items from storage.
STORAGE_ACCESS_PUT // Allow putting items to storage.
STORAGE_ACCESS_ALL // Allow all actions.
Default storage mode : STORAGE_ACCESS_ALL
Script Commands
Changed: openstorage(<storage_id>{, <storage_mode>})
Issues addressed:
- [x] https://github.com/HerculesWS/Hercules/pull/1763
Windows compile fine for now, will be checking linux warnings and errors soon.
In my opinion the Xcode upgrade should not be part of this PR since it's not required.
In my opinion the Xcode upgrade should not be part of this PR since it's not required.
Ok, will remove it, I had just migrated it from old code to new code
@Kenpachi2k13 updated to latest commit and made all changes that were mentioned by you.
look like compilation errors in all or most jobs
was problem with scope, fixed it.
@dastgirp Can you complete this? Seems to be having conflicts again... =(
It was already completed but for some reason not merged, If it is going to be merged in next cycle, I can fix the conflicts again, but without confirmation, it would just keep on conflicting with every new release, so, I won't be fixing conflict as of now until confirmation is received or some changes are requested.
By the way, quick question, is there a particular reason why you began storage IDs at 1 instead of 0 and did not made a default storage ID? (ie. When no storage ID is specified, default to 0 and open the basic storage)?Just curious, no need to rewrite anything on my account 😅As for milestones and etc I don't know, GitHub said it was waiting for @Kenpachi2k13 to review but I don't know if that's true or not =/But it might be related to why the PR has no tags and wasn't merged already?
It was already completed but for some reason not merged, If it is going to be merged in next cycle, I can fix the conflicts again, but without confirmation, it would just keep on conflicting with every new release, so, I won't be fixing conflict as of now until confirmation is received or some changes are requested.
It's officially on hold, I believe.
-- Sent from Yandex.Mail for mobile
12:10, July 1, 2021, Bruno Silva @.***>: Does anyone have any news about?
—You are receiving this because you commented.Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
@dastgirp @MishimaHaruna can we have a definitive merging window and finish this?
