Re: Major bug and what to do about it (long)

[Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu>]

Hans Ronne wrote:

>>I disagree. There is (or should be) an attempted attack carried out on
>>the ghost unit. As near as I can tell, an attempted attack could be
>>framed in terms of an action (which may, in turn, invoke other actions).
> 
> 
> I agree that there should be an attempt to attack the ghost unit, which
> should be framed in terms of an action. That is my whole point. 

That is my point as well.

>But this is
> not how the code works. What happens is that the attempted attack never
> occurs because check_fire_at_action returns false. This, I would emphasize,
> happens before prep_fire_at_action is called, so the action is not even
> scheduled, much less attempted.

Right. And I have recognized this as shortcoming in the code since at 
least Dec 29 of last year.

> The check_x_action functions are actually used in two completely different
> ways. 

Right. I have done enough action and task hacking to have witnessed the 
two different modes of usage many times in the past.

> As
> I see it, the latter is really an abuse of these functions, particularly if
> they reference real units instead of unit views, as in the current case.

Right. And I have certainly argued in past threads that we move away 
from using real units at all in AI and UI code. This reduces the 
temptation to reference them when they should not be referenced. (And 
also helps forge the path towards going client-server with Xconq.)

Eric