Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160519-2047

Builds for previous versions go here

Moderator: Developers

User avatar
Dusk
Developer
Posts: 581
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 9:59 pm
Location: Turku

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160519-2047

#21

Post by Dusk » Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:44 pm

Lanz wrote:It's curious that this would only affect the multiplayer menu though. It must be constructed in a different way than the other menus for this bug's behaviour to impact it and not any of the other menus, wouldn't you say? So thus this unexpected behaviour, the definition of a bug.
The reason this happens is that the options menu is defined in a single block, and if you want to add anything to it, you need to re-define the options menu entirely. So when Zandronum adds something to it (e.g. multiplayer options), a mod also redefining the menu winds up leaving it out. This is due to shortsightedness of ZDoom's developers in relation to MENUDEF design. It's not our problem to fix.

Unexpected behavior is not the definition of a bug, by the way.

User avatar
Lanz
New User
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 3:25 pm
Location: Ontario
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160519-2047

#22

Post by Lanz » Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:47 pm

Dusk wrote:
Lanz wrote:It's curious that this would only affect the multiplayer menu though. It must be constructed in a different way than the other menus for this bug's behaviour to impact it and not any of the other menus, wouldn't you say? So thus this unexpected behaviour, the definition of a bug.
The reason this happens is that the options menu is defined in a single block, and if you want to add anything to it, you need to re-define the options menu entirely. So when Zandronum adds something to it (e.g. multiplayer options), a mod also redefining the menu winds up leaving it out. This is due to shortsightedness of ZDoom's developers in relation to MENUDEF design. It's not our problem to fix.

Unexpected behavior is not the definition of a bug, by the way.
Fair enough, that's a solid explanation. Thanks! As for the definition of a bug, that's the definition we used when I was a software developer. Any unexpected behaviour got a ticket on Gitlab.

User avatar
Dusk
Developer
Posts: 581
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 9:59 pm
Location: Turku

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160519-2047

#23

Post by Dusk » Sat Aug 13, 2016 8:06 pm

Lanz wrote:As for the definition of a bug, that's the definition we used when I was a software developer. Any unexpected behaviour got a ticket on Gitlab.
When you get into developing game engines the line gets a bit blurry. Especially if it's a fork of a Doom engine mod.

User avatar
Lanz
New User
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 3:25 pm
Location: Ontario
Contact:

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160519-2047

#24

Post by Lanz » Sat Aug 13, 2016 8:10 pm

Dusk wrote:
Lanz wrote:As for the definition of a bug, that's the definition we used when I was a software developer. Any unexpected behaviour got a ticket on Gitlab.
When you get into developing game engines the line gets a bit blurry. Especially if it's a fork of a Doom engine mod.
Yeah, I've only done corporate apps. Mostly Java apps, but the occasional C++ one, and some web dev too. I'm following the Zandronum source repo though. If I had more time, I'd probably contribute. Maybe someday.

User avatar
Dusk
Developer
Posts: 581
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 9:59 pm
Location: Turku

Re: Zandronum 3.0-alpha-160519-2047

#25

Post by Dusk » Sat Aug 13, 2016 10:38 pm

Lanz wrote:
Dusk wrote:
Lanz wrote:As for the definition of a bug, that's the definition we used when I was a software developer. Any unexpected behaviour got a ticket on Gitlab.
When you get into developing game engines the line gets a bit blurry. Especially if it's a fork of a Doom engine mod.
Yeah, I've only done corporate apps. Mostly Java apps, but the occasional C++ one, and some web dev too. I'm following the Zandronum source repo though. If I had more time, I'd probably contribute. Maybe someday.
Feel free to anytime, we're always open for pull requests.

Post Reply