[1.5.1+] Extensive Engineer Report Continued & Ship Sections Continued

[Gordon Dry]

@linuxgurugamer Is this known to be compatible to KCT (because that also fiddles with the launch button)?

[linuxgurugamer]

6 minutes ago, Gordon Dry said:

@linuxgurugamer Is this known to be compatible to KCT (because that also fiddles with the launch button)?

No idea

[Apaseall]

@linuxgurugamer

Hi, I see this mod has dependency of ShipSections. Installing results in two files called ShipSections.cfg, one in \GameData\ExtensiveEngineerReport\ModuleManager, the other in \GameData\ShipSections\ModuleManager.
Both contain the same code, the difference being that the one in \GameData\ShipSections\ModuleManager also uses :FOR[ShipSections].

The reason I know this is that I am examining a .craft file whilst referencing the ModuleManager.ConfigCache.

One of the results of having two instances of the same ShipSections.cfg is that we then have two sets of MODULE[SectionInfo] and MODULE[SmartRename], in the cache, which end up in the .craft file.

As a temporary work around I have changed the first @PART[*] into;

Spoiler

@PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[SectionInfo]]:FOR[ShipSections]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = SectionInfo
    }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[SmartRename]]:FOR[ShipSections]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = SmartRename
    }
}

I realize this is trivial. I mention it so that at some point in the future you can chose to tidy your code to avoid duplication.

[linuxgurugamer]

2 minutes ago, Apaseall said:

@linuxgurugamer

Hi, I see this mod has dependency of ShipSections. Installing results in two files called ShipSections.cfg, one in \GameData\ExtensiveEngineerReport\ModuleManager, the other in \GameData\ShipSections\ModuleManager.
Both contain the same code, the difference being that the one in \GameData\ShipSections\ModuleManager also uses :FOR[ShipSections].

The reason I know this is that I am examining a .craft file whilst referencing the ModuleManager.ConfigCache.

One of the results of having two instances of the same ShipSections.cfg is that we then have two sets of MODULE[SectionInfo] and MODULE[SmartRename], in the cache, which end up in the .craft file.

As a temporary work around I have changed the first @PART[*] into;

  Reveal hidden contents

@PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[SectionInfo]]:FOR[ShipSections]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = SectionInfo
    }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[SmartRename]]:FOR[ShipSections]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = SmartRename
    }
}

I realize this is trivial. I mention it so that at some point in the future you can chose to tidy your code to avoid duplication.

The current version does NOT have that dependency.  It is updated in both CKAN and the OP:

Quote

Important

The ShipSections MOD has been depreciated, the dll is now included with the ExtensiveEngineerReport

If using CKAN, remove the ShipSections mod

 If not, then delete the following directory:  GameData/ShipSections

 

[Apaseall]

Thank you.

[Apaseall]

Here is a candidate for most posted log of the day: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5sdzcbltobydaoj/saves for LoadingScreenManager.1.output_log.rar?dl=0

Inside is some stuff like this:

Spoiler

[Extensive Engineer Report] Item MissionBlackListPreFlightCheck does not have a default constructor
 
(Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/DebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 51)

[Extensive Engineer Report] Found item: MissionPreflightCheck
 
(Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/DebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 51)

[Extensive Engineer Report] Item MissionPreflightCheck does not have a default constructor

It may be harmless, but a missing constructor does not sound rather nice, either way would you mind taking a look at this as well. Thanks.

[Fraktal]

Question, (probably) not bug-related.

The check for a probe battery with EC flow disabled does not check the probe core's battery. That is, if I set an external battery to disabled, it satisfies the check but if I set the probe's own battery to disabled (since it's too little to be used as anything other than backup and is enough to turn the probe with reaction wheels to point fixed panels towards the sun), it still says there's no backup. Why?

[Dimentia]

@linuxgurugamer Fix version file. 

Thanks for you big job for KSP!

Edited October 27, 2018 by Dimentia

[linuxgurugamer]

7 hours ago, Dimentia said:

@linuxgurugamer Fix version file. 

Thanks for you big job for KSP!

Would be nice if you mentioned what was wrong with it 

New release, 0.1.3.2

• Version bump to fix .version file (there are 2 .version files, I missed one)

[Gordon Dry]

I must admit that this mod has the same bugs as two years ago ...

[linuxgurugamer]

6 hours ago, Gordon Dry said:

I must admit that this mod has the same bugs as two years ago ...

I must admit that this mod is essentially in a life support mode

[Gordon Dry]

I just had this Déjà-vu feeling as I recognized the issues.

Hadn't used this mod for a while ...

[Murdabenne]

If you find a persistent bug, feel free to submit a bug report (logs and such), and a pull request if you have a fix. @linuxgurugamer is known to be an accepting kind of guy (at least when it comes to bug reports and pull requests with fixes) 

 

Edited November 4, 2018 by Murdabenne

[Gordon Dry]

That old bugs are kinda annoying and difficult to explain. In simple words: click anything in the "wrong" order and it's borked.
Actually I removed it again. When I'm in the mood.
Until then: anybody else who plays with more than a handful of mods: please ... be also a beta tester.