Re: bug in infantry building a base which is already started

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

On Tue, 25 May 2004, Hans Ronne wrote:

> Actually, what macro you use doesn't make any difference, i.e. the second
> infantry still refuses to join the build, and instead goes into passive
> waiting mode.

Really? I thought I saw it join in the building. Or, at least, it 
moved inside the base and pretended to be doing something until 
the base was done. :-) Once I saw that, I was satisfied that the 
bug was fixed, and don't think that I actually went into survey 
mode and clicked on the 2nd infantry. Sounds like maybe I should 
have....

> However, if you override the view code by turning on see-all things work as
> expected, with either macro. So it seems that the core unit view code is
> the real culprit. 

This is what I actually suspected too, but because there is all 
this extra "->transport" and "->occupant" stuff in the "with_occs" 
version of the macro, I thought there might be a problem in 
there somewhere.

>The unit view code is unusual in that it uses a hash
> table and "nextinhash" rather than the usual "nexthere".  The effect of
> see-all is to overide the use of "nextinhash".

Right. I noticed this when I was investigating the problem last 
night. But, I was too tired to finish the deeper investigation, 
and went for a shallower "fix". Probably I should have went to bed 
instead of doing a CVS commit.

> I always had a bad feeling about the view code and its hash table, since I
> am not convinced that it works as expected in all circumstances. Maybe we
> should take a closer look at it.

I intend to, but probably not until the weekend. I have to finish 
preparing a presentation for next week at work. I also have to 
re-install Windows XP in its virtual machine, since I had a bit of 
a "mishap" with it on Sunday night, which is why I didn't release 
a new installer package then.

Eric