Skip to content

Updated Redstone Requester Peripheral #7757

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

Conversation

McArctic
Copy link

@McArctic McArctic commented Mar 6, 2025

Changed how #7558 handled the redstone requester

Redstone requester peripheral can now take in tables aswell for bulk orders, it also will throw if the network does not have the items needed

Karotte128 and others added 3 commits March 2, 2025 13:23
Added the ability to accept tables for bulk orders

Added checks to see if the network has stock, if not it will throw

Cleaned up
@McArctic McArctic changed the title Modified PR #7558 Updated Redstone Requester Peripheral Mar 6, 2025
@McArctic
Copy link
Author

McArctic commented Mar 6, 2025

@uthoffcyra I borrowed your format :)

Redstone Requester

orderPackage(destination, item, amount)

or

orderPackage(destination, tableOfItems)

Creates an order for a specific item or multiple items from the stock network the Redstone Requester is tuned to.

  • destination: string. The address to be added as the package's destination label.
  • item: string. The ID of the item to be requested. For example, "minecraft:quartz".
  • amount: integer. The number of the requested item to be packaged. If not set will default to 1.
  • tableOfItems: table. A dictionary where keys are item IDs (e.g., "minecraft:quartz") and values are the quantities to request.

Example:

orderPackage("storage_room", {
    ["minecraft:quartz"] = 16,
    ["minecraft:redstone"] = 32
})

@Karotte128
Copy link

Thank you for the changes. Closed the old PR.

@simibubi
Copy link
Collaborator

simibubi commented Mar 6, 2025

Thanks for the PR.

Does this have overlap with #7669? Maybe get in contact and make sure there are no conflicting changes

Is it possible to target 1.20 for feature parity? If not that's okay, you'll just have to make it clear in the wiki that 1.20 users do not have access to this

@Karotte128
Copy link

Karotte128 commented Mar 6, 2025

Sure would be possible to port this feature to 1.20.
Should I do it? Do not want to create a copy of a copy of my old PR.
And the features are almost the same as #7669. Not sure which PR solves the issue better.

@Karotte128
Copy link

I think we should close this PR. I talked with BirbIrl from PR #7669, all features will be ported to that one.

@McArctic
Copy link
Author

McArctic commented Mar 6, 2025

Closing as we are working on a diffrent pr #7669

@McArctic McArctic closed this Mar 6, 2025
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.

3 participants