Skip to content

Computer Craft integration for Update 6 Logistics Blocks #7883

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

Draft
wants to merge 92 commits into
base: mc1.20.1/dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

BirbIrl
Copy link

@BirbIrl BirbIrl commented Mar 10, 2025

This is the backported version of @AsterAether, @Karotte128, @McArctic and I's efforts at bringing the logistics blocks to full compatibility with computercraft!
The original PR can be found here: #7669
Note that 1.20.1 is technically the "base" branch for us, and our 1.21.1 branch merges these commits in with extra patches.

Oh also there's like 10 lines that got edited out cuz of linting (probably cause of me, i refuse to use an IDE and rock neovim just to feel something), whoops! I'm afraid of adding commits to undo that as to not confuse git with what should be merged and how between the branches. Hope that's okay!

oh and Aster, Karotte and Arcitc all have equal say here. if you have any questions and i'm unavailable when they are - take their word and assume i agree with them! :D

BirbIrl and others added 30 commits March 7, 2025 18:42
enchantment checks exclusive, (one enchant per one set of enchant traits), made it so the number of enchants in the filter and items have to match. Will give a good example of it in the documentation linked in the pr
…getting to set a variable t what they want it to be
Order is off when placing into requester
fixed the ordering bug
Added some safety stuff and made it actually save
Added a check to respect the redstone requesters default 256 max item limit
Copy link

@Karotte128 Karotte128 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The .factorypath file looks like it should not be pushed to git. @BirbIrl Did you forget to add it to gitignore?

@BirbIrl
Copy link
Author

BirbIrl commented May 23, 2025

The .factorypath file looks like it should not be pushed to git. @BirbIrl Did you forget to add it to gitignore?

your honor i plead an oopsie daisy

added to note to the PackageOrderLuaObject code
@BirbIrl BirbIrl requested a review from Karotte128 May 23, 2025 11:16
Copy link

@Karotte128 Karotte128 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this is all I found.
Formatting is a bit off at some places, I might fix it if you want @BirbIrl.

@BirbIrl
Copy link
Author

BirbIrl commented May 25, 2025

Alright so i want to make sure this pr is as best as it can be. I've been making a serial test world for all computercraft x create stuff, which, while developing it, helped me find two bugs already (that sprung up while updating the branch).

I feel like for the quality of the create mod it's not a good idea to pull in the pr just yet until i get done with that, which, was supposed to take a week, but could also take weeks.

After i'm done making the world i'll try and either make it work as a schematic somehow(?) or upload it and the scripts so that every time there's a create update, checking if there's any changes on the CC end will be easy.

Also the stock ticker's requestFiltered() function i'm not entirely happy with, and i wanted to implement @Electric131's suggestion of grouping orders

Other than that i have a couple of vanity things i wanted to change but stuff came up for me this weekend sooo until then i'm making this pr a draft for the time being. I don't want people to go crazy adding comptuercraft scripts for the logistics chains only to find out next update there's a breaking change :>

I will warn you about messing with PackageOrderWithCrafts information, though. The re-packager does not validate it on its end and will dupe or void items if the recipe and order data does not match up. This has been a common source of issues even for base create.

Should be fine! we only really fetch information of the order, never change it after the first time the package is made and we're not planning on implementing that either :3.

@BirbIrl BirbIrl marked this pull request as draft May 25, 2025 15:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pr type: feature PR adds a new feature or changes an existing feature
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.