WP cache function bug

[>BKA< T Wrecks]

Ok, here's a new thread on this topic (to make KWo happy ):

The Wp cache function doesn't work properly:
1) The # of the cached Wp isn't shown correctly (shows some loong number like "199643331" instead - well, something similar. You get the idea.)
2) The WP cache isn't emptied. Once cached, a WP stays in cache until the whole game is restarted.

There are two possible solutions:
1) Auto-clean the cache after one add/delete operation (disadvantage: when deleting a bi-directional connection, you need to cache 2 times)
2) Add an option to clean WP cache anytime you like (disadvantage: more complicated to code, I guess, and maybe not enough numbers free in WP menu?)
-------
@PMB: Thanks for the effort you made to save SF's and my precious little waypointing fingers from rheumatism - you're like a mother (only that most moms don't code as well...) [in reply to your last comment in the "ladder bug" thread]

[KWo]

Originally Posted by >BKA< T Wrecks

Ok, here's a new thread on this topic (to make KWo happy ):

Look at all bots-united forums - there are many threads for one bot some ideas between bug reports and others. In this podbot26mm forum SoUlFaThEr dedicated some effort to create some order. You have separate subforum for Ideas, for Coding for Bug reports and for Common questions. If You have a separate thread for each problem - it's very easy to find something by some people trying using this bot. You have to remember - this forum is not only for us , but for other people, too. For us - OK - we are looking here every day so we can see some posts marked as "new" and we can find all we need very fast. But for external people - podbot 2.6mm users - this can be much more complicated and difficult to find something here. If I remember good - it was SoUlFaThEr asking to write all separate problems in separate threads after writing these two monster threads at begining. I want only keep this roule. Yes - I like some order and in this case I can be happy. Maybe my English is too bad, so if somebody can hear some words sharp too much - it was not my intention attacking somebody. If You , boys, don't want keep this roule (separate problem - separate thread) - I don't care - I'm not a moderator or an admin here. You don't need keep this roule for me, but try to remember about poor users. But if You, T Wrecks, made this really especially for me - thanks. I will remember - You wanted to be nice for me (like all time since my starting to be a member at this forum). What can I do for You to make You happy, too?

OK - back to the thread - I just copy what I said in ladder bug thread.


Many times I cached some wp, and after I tryied remove some connection and I saw the situations:
a) message Already no Path to this Waypoint
b) deleting of some another connection , not to cached wp.
Similar problems with adding path to some cached wp.

BTW: In Bots-United there is an off-topic forum, but for all bots. Maybe we have to ask SF and PMB to open an off-topic subforum at PODBOT26mm forum? Here is really like in chat-room... Oops - maybe I should write this at Ideas subforum?

[sPlOrYgOn]

I think I've just found the problem to this bug..

   UTIL_HostPrint ("Waypoint #%d has been put into memory\n");

should be

   UTIL_HostPrint ("Waypoint #%d has been put into memory\n", g_iCachedWaypoint);

[>BKA< T Wrecks]

Ok, reading code is like reading a Chinese newspaper for me... but if I guess correctly, the change you show here will only correct the message displayed on screen when caching a WP, but not the problem with the cache not being emptied, or am I wrong?

[sPlOrYgOn]

you have to empty it yourself by going to an area of no waypoints and trying to cache one

[KWo]

Yes - You have to do it in this way, because something is missing in the code. Look here:
http://forums.bots-united.com/showthread.php?t=1518

there is described:

Originally Posted by SoUlFaThEr

In some rare cases even this might not function (rare) but there is a new function in the options menu of the Editors menu system that allows you to "cache", or save a waypoint to memory. once this waypoint is in the cache.....you can go to another waypoint.....and simply press add or delete how you like and it will all be directed at this cache'd waypoint. the cache stops after a command has been used on it.

Or maybe we all are wrong????

[sPlOrYgOn]

in the code it doesn't seem to clear it after you use it..
do you guys want it to be cleared after it's been used?

[KWo]

Originally Posted by sPlOrYgOn

in the code it doesn't seem to clear it after you use it..
do you guys want it to be cleared after it's been used?

If You clear this cache immediately after using there are some possibility:
a) what about deleting bi-directional connection (You can still leave in memory this cached WP for this man wanting clear connection in second direction, but if he will not do it - the cache will be not cleared)?
b) if somebody wants to add to cached WP1 another WP3, after connecting WP2 - in this case he has to go once again to this WP1 (cached at begining for first connection) to make connection between WP1 and WP3 - maybe somebody likes this way - cache once and after make manualy all connection to this first cached WP?

I think - You have to ask directly SoUlFaThEr - this function was made by PMB especially for him and T Wrecks (You remember this post about save their fingers... ) - we can't decide something different. T Wrecks wrote his opinion - now wait for SF.

[>BKA< T Wrecks]

Well, to be honest, I think a solution where the menu entry "Cache this WP" would change to "Clear WP cache" whenever a waypoint is in cache, would be the absolutely fabulous kick-ass solution.
Two other solutions are the one that empties the cache automatically (with all the advantages / disadvantages described by me & KWo) and, of course, the one that's in the code right now. The only problem I had with the current solution is that I didn't know it!
I'd say this is very low-priority anyway, so I wouldn't insist on changing it now. In the long run, the solution I described here might be the nicest one, but I can work very well with the function as it is now - now I know it!

[SoUlFaThEr]

it seems to be the most logical solution T Clear WP Cache...simple and smart.