Skip to content

fix: allowing quick NetworkHide and NetworkShow [MTT-3488] #1944

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 9, 2022

Conversation

jeffreyrainy
Copy link
Contributor

Verifies which object got OnDestroyed, to prevent confusion on quick NetworkHide and NetworkShow.

Addresses #1940

@jeffreyrainy jeffreyrainy requested review from 0xFA11 and TwoTenPvP May 8, 2022 14:41
@jeffreyrainy jeffreyrainy requested a review from a team as a code owner May 8, 2022 14:41
Copy link
Contributor

@0xFA11 0xFA11 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

changelog entry?
(also potentially backport?)

Copy link
Contributor

@0xFA11 0xFA11 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

and a test to verify behavior? :)

@jeffreyrainy
Copy link
Contributor Author

and a test to verify behavior? :)

Done.

@jeffreyrainy
Copy link
Contributor Author

changelog entry?
(also potentially backport?)

Yep, changelog added. Backport, for sure, but it's easier to do it as a second PR once this is merged.

@jeffreyrainy jeffreyrainy requested a review from 0xFA11 May 9, 2022 15:23
Show(mode == 0, false);
Show(mode == 0, true);

yield return new WaitForSeconds(0.5f);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

perhaps waitforticks (network) instead of waitforseconds?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

None of the options are correct. Both underscore the underlying issues with our tests setup. But yeah, I can change it if you prefer. I guess 5 ticks ought to be enough.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, done using ticks :-)

@jeffreyrainy jeffreyrainy merged commit ad68997 into develop May 9, 2022
@jeffreyrainy jeffreyrainy deleted the fix/despawning-this-object branch May 9, 2022 19:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants