Compatibility Popup Blocker

[Khatharr]

@Khatharr: Three big problems with your code:

1) There is no way to not silence the message on repeats. While I understand that this is the behavior you want, it isn't useful to users that want or expect to be reminded.

2) Without providing a license for the code, it is licensed ARR, and we can't use it. Why haven't you licensed it?

3) It is not a functional Compatibility Checker version; as I mentioned, the proper thing for you to do is to release the full version as a fork of CC. Why have you not done this?

I added a license statement to the previously posted code snippet. You can do whatever you want with it or not do whatever you want with it. It's not intended as a CC fork. As previously stated, I stopped work on that when you decided to snark at me about it before I even completed it. Additionally, in the CC thread you (and others) were more than gung-ho about telling me no, a disable option is not okay, and more or less calling me (and all other users) stupid. Now that the context has changed, you suddenly declare that CC is no one's baby. Well... Here we are.

At this point, you've basically declared that we use your code (...) or we deal with this interference plugin.

Firstly, as previously stated, this plugin remains regardless.

Try to think about this for a moment. You're viewing this as an "interference plugin". Myself and may others view intentionally annoying popup boxes as "interference behavior". You yourself stated in the CC thread that the behavior was intentionally designed to force the user into compliance. Well, now there's a plugin that gives users the ability to avoid being forced into anything. This is provision of a service. If you're afraid that it will somehow cause millions of people to suddenly forget that updates may potentially break mod compatibility, even though they had to explicitly download a plugin to deal with that very fact, then maybe you should revise your general strategy.

You are free to do whatever you want. My advice to you is to implement some form of user control over the dialog - as was suggested - so that the popup blocker will become irrelevant because users will still get their warnings, but won't feel harassed. It will take you (or anyone else) a half hour and then you'll never have to worry about it again. You can include the code snippet I posted if you want, or not. Everybody wins. That's only my advice. You are free to do whatever you want.

At this point, I am in no way convinced that the popup blocker is doing more harm than good. I will not remove the popup blocker unless and until the time arrives that I feel that this is the case. Originally I was prepared to trust you lot to do the right thing and adopt the optional behavior, but clearly that's not the plan, so I'll simply maintain the blocker. If at some point in the future I see that CC implementation of user suppression options has become common, then I'll begin to consider whether the popup blocker still has merit.

To everyone posting here:

I'd like to thank those of you have stated clearly why you want to use the mod, or why you don't want to use the mod. I'm happy because you're making your own choice in the matter, regardless of which choice you make.

For those of you who are just here to complain about the sky falling, please consider this the next time someone comes to you with a complaint about high-handed behavior.

Try to understand their position and try to pay them the respect that you would like to be paid in that same position.

They may make their own solution and it may not be the one you wanted.

Katharr,

A suggestion: make users of Compatibility Popup Blocker demonstrate on a minimum level that they can, in fact, support themselves.

One way: post your source, but not the dll. That way, rather than editing and recompiling every mod that uses CC, players only need to compile your mod once.

I understand your intent, but one of my goals here is to provide the option to people who may not have an IDE or compiler handy.

Another way: make this function rely on a config option that must be edited by hand and defaults off.

Both of these approaches would demonstrate knowledge and skills above the most common support requests that I handle.

This I like. This I will do. Update should come a little later tonight.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Khatharr

[johnnyboy76]

Personally? I think this mod is good in theory, but terrible in reality. Stop that annoying compatibility window the hundredth time you've started ksp? Good. Increase almost every modder's support problems by disabling a safety feature they put in specifically so that users know that it probably won't work? Bad. As was stated earlier, it's like shutting off a warning light on an air plane. Take Treeloader, for example - I ignored the warning message and tried it regardless, to see if I could play around any broken features. Not a chance - it screwed up too much. If someone's compatibility window is disabled before that mod is added, they won't know - and the problem is that many people are too lazy to remove this plugin and check what's incompatible. Instead, they immediately start begging for help, and take away time for helping people with legitimate issues, and who have followed even the most basic of troubleshooting instructions. There are a heck of a lot of stupid people out there. Take, for example, my sister's coworker - she took the entire months birth control pill's in one day. That kind of idiocy is rampant on the internet moreso than in everyday life, and removing a safety feature specifically aimed at mitigating it doesn't help AT ALL.

-Opinion of a lurker

[Guest]

Great, an other freedom fighter who comes to free the users from the modders oppression. I actually expected to see a #GG tag near the end of your post.

Your time may be better used writing actual mods instead of doing all you can to make actual modders want to stop modding...

Dears mods, feel free to delete my post and ban me. I'm tired of this community.

The actions of one or a few do not necessarily reflect the views of the whole. There is a word for that. It's called stereotyping. You're statements here, sarbian, are not a reflection of you obvious intelligence, as can be observed by anyone who has followed your work. It's easy to understand why you would get upset by some of the statements and actions in this thread. But to judge the whole of the community based on the actions of a few is wrong. I believe that you are better than that.

I say that here in public because I want everyone to see that getting upset over what one person says is never worth it. There are so many more people here that are good people. Don't forget that. There are probably thousands of good people reading these posts that you will never meet or talk to. What kind of impression do you want to leave on them?

[Guest]

I support this plugin. In fact, I've got a suggestion for expanding it. It'd be great if you made it remove the restriction that stops plugins from working on 64bit builds. Some people had success running 64bit builds in OpenGL mode, and I'm sure there's a market among them for RealChute, FAR or KJR. I would have used it if it existed back when I needed it (now I don't, but once 0.90 comes around, it'll likely come in very handy), and it'll become a must-have plugin for me if you add a "x64 build enabler" (well, that, and once I finally get my PC upgraded).

[AetherGoddess]

i have problems with this. disabling warnings is always asking for trouble. the designer of the warning is trying to tell you something. this is a bit like plugging your ears and shouting "LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU" at a construction safety sign.

[Guest]

In most cases, you've been already told, though. This is one of the plugins you install after the warnings start to annoy you. It's like plugging your ears at one of those constant "Please don't leave your luggage unattended" loudspeaker calls in airports. You've got the message once (or you knew that in first place), it's annoying afterwards. At least in an airport, there are people coming in at all times, so it's more excusable (still won't stop you from thinking "Yeah, got the point, now STFU!!!"). You see a construction safety sign once when entering the site, so it's a bad example. It's up to you not to pay attention to it if you have business being on the site in question (in that case, you likely know the safety rules already, too).

Edited October 23, 2014 by Guest

[regex]

The best part of all this is the :effort: that went into this mod and thread, and not on just clicking "OK".

[malkuth]

The best part of all this is the :effort: that went into this mod and thread, and not on just clicking "OK".

[Guest]

How many times you start KSP each day? Imagine you have to click "OK" four times every time you run KSP. It quickly becomes very frustrating. I play with lots of mods, so memory crashes are frequent, I've come to accept them as a part of gameplay. Restarting has to be smooth. Clicking "OK" 40 times a day suddenly doesn't sound so fun, doesn't it?

[ferram4]

I added a license statement to the previously posted code snippet. You can do whatever you want with it or not do whatever you want with it. It's not intended as a CC fork. As previously stated, I stopped work on that when you decided to snark at me about it before I even completed it. Additionally, in the CC thread you (and others) were more than gung-ho about telling me no, a disable option is not okay, and more or less calling me (and all other users) stupid. Now that the context has changed, you suddenly declare that CC is no one's baby. Well... Here we are.

Well then, since it's not a feature that I would like to see, I won't code up a CC version involving it. I've only ever used CC versions developed by others, I don't see why I should start for a feature that I don't see merit in. You could have avoided this by just releasing it as a full CC version, and then maybe I would have considered it; given the way CC works (as you are so clearly aware, since you're exploiting it for this), all you would have had to do is get one other mod using CC to update to your version, and the one that I included would have been irrelevant.

Firstly, as previously stated, this plugin remains regardless.

So you're just trying to make our lives harder. Thanks.

Try to think about this for a moment. You're viewing this as an "interference plugin".

It deliberately disables what is the primary feature of Compatibility Checker. The only thing it doesn't do is interfere with the compatibility checks themselves. Yet, I suppose.

Myself and may others view intentionally annoying popup boxes as "interference behavior". You yourself stated in the CC thread that the behavior was intentionally designed to force the user into compliance.

A popup that can be addressed while loading the game up is interference... It's intended to convince people to update. I know damn well I can't force people to update, there's no way around that. Reminding them that their mod isn't intended to work on this KSP version, that I can do.

Well, now there's a plugin that gives users the ability to avoid being forced into anything. This is provision of a service. If you're afraid that it will somehow cause millions of people to suddenly forget that updates may potentially break mod compatibility, even though they had to explicitly download a plugin to deal with that very fact, then maybe you should revise your general strategy.

Said like someone without experience supporting a mod. The number of times that people wonder what mod includes X feature, or why after removing Y mod Z was gone, etc. is more than enough proof that people forget what they've downloaded and installed. As with all the others who think they know better than the modders that are already here: try your hand at it for a bit, then come to a conclusion.

You are free to do whatever you want. My advice to you is to implement some form of user control over the dialog - as was suggested - so that the popup blocker will become irrelevant because users will still get their warnings, but won't feel harassed.

Yes, I am sure that after you've acted with intent to make our support lives harder that you will simply stop if we cave.

At this point, I am in no way convinced that the popup blocker is doing more harm than good. I will not remove the popup blocker unless and until the time arrives that I feel that this is the case. Originally I was prepared to trust you lot to do the right thing and adopt the optional behavior, but clearly that's not the plan, so I'll simply maintain the blocker. If at some point in the future I see that CC implementation of user suppression options has become common, then I'll begin to consider whether the popup blocker still has merit.

So basically, "do my bidding, or I will punish you for the sin of providing us with free stuff and trying to make it easier on yourselves by addressing common user problems." You and I both know that you'll never be satisfied, and that it's just a ruse. If it weren't, you would have gone through with making the CC fork. Instead, you decided to try and kill CC entirely.

How many times you start KSP each day? Imagine you have to click "OK" four times every time you run KSP. It quickly becomes very frustrating. I play with lots of mods, so memory crashes are frequent, I've come to accept them as a part of gameplay. Restarting has to be smooth. Clicking "OK" 40 times a day suddenly doesn't sound so fun, doesn't it?

CC always provides only 1 popup. Ever. It's part of the system that Khatharr is exploiting to make this function. So at best, you're getting 10 popups to close.

...but if KSP is crashing often enough that you're having to restart it 10 times in a day, you've got worse problems than CC.

[Khatharr]

Update posted. Enjoy.

[regex]

How many times you start KSP each day? Imagine you have to click "OK" four times every time you run KSP. It quickly becomes very frustrating. I play with lots of mods, so memory crashes are frequent, I've come to accept them as a part of gameplay. Restarting has to be smooth. Clicking "OK" 40 times a day suddenly doesn't sound so fun, doesn't it?

I play on Linux x64 and it's pretty darn stable, so maybe starting it once or twice? Firespitter is always complaining to me about being out of date; I never found any reason to complain about it.

Maybe if you didn't use Win x64 with unsupported mods you wouldn't have to click "OK" so many times per day?

[AetherGoddess]

i'm only glad this thing doesn't include some kind of self-update self repair thing like modstats. granted that's scraping the bottom of the barrel for cold comfort....

[TouhouTorpedo]

Can some of you modders get over yourselves? Seriously.

I see nothing wrong with what Khathar has done here. "You're modding my mod!" there's been plenty that do that in one way or another, who cares.

"But muh support!" individual users are smart people. The majority of the time they'll get on, make logical decisions and do everything fine. Unfortunately, users as a whole, myself included at times and every last one of you, are dumb. A mod that suddenly pops up to block a compatability pop up being there or not will not stop your inboxes being flooded with "why doesn't X work", Even IF you put information everywhere to inform people of it won't work. Trust me I've tried.

What's really offensive here is the attitude a few modders have had practically saying they'll make their mods into malware that wrecks someone's gameplay if they install this. Congrats, you've just alienated your users into never updating your mod again regardless if they are or are not using this mod. Counter productive attitude, no? And on updating and forking CC, I really don't think making more variants of compatibility checker and risking those becoming incompatible with each other to cause issues is worth the bother when a plugin this simple can solve the issue if someone perceived this as one.

TLDR; I've lost respect of a lot of modders reading over this thread. Sort yourselves out.

[regex]

And on updating and forking CC, I really don't think making more variants of compatibility checker and risking those becoming incompatible with each other to cause issues is worth the bother when a plugin this simple can solve the issue if someone perceived this as one.

More variants? CC uses the highest installed version of itself, so one mod updating effectively updates them all. Now, though, I can easily see a future where instead of one unified, well-meaning (both for user and modder), compatibility-checking window that most mods use, what we're likely to get is a wide variety of nag windows using separate implementations in order to circumvent this mod and retain functionality. So instead of clicking "OK" once, you'll be clicking it multiple times to clear multiple windows.

[Guest]

Maybe if you didn't use Win x64 with unsupported mods you wouldn't have to click "OK" so many times per day?

I use Win32, and this is, in fact, a large part of the reason for the crashes. Besides, read my post. Memory crashes. Win64 would've likely saved me a lot of grief with that, but FAR won't even run on it. Which brings us to my feature request... Besides, I'm a mod dev who does stuff for RSS. Even assuming things don't crash, restarting is par the course for developing anything there. ModuleManager doesn't like it when I reload configs from debug toolbar.

Also, you can update Firespitter, you know?

Edited October 24, 2014 by Guest

[NathanKell]

Well, as yet only one modder has threatened to flounce away and not let us have his mods in this thread; I'd call that the ultimate response, not further breaking one's mod in response to someone else breaking one's mod.

And even then, I think tempers have cooled, and quite rightly. Because the way this breaks mods is not terribly severe, in the grand scheme of things; it's very bad for the modders involved, but thankfully it does *not* reenable mods which lock themselves when unsupported versions are detected. That will, of course, lead to people wondering why their mods are silently failing to work (and wondering very loudly and rudely in the direction of the mod's author), but at least it won't break games and break saves as disabling the locks will.

It does sound, however, like we're at an impasse: no improvements can be made to CC while this tool is in the wild; improvements which, I will point out, modders are *not* opposed to (Majiir himself is working on a way for users to selectively disable the warnings and the locks, as *part of CC*, but with appropriate safeguards). But so long as this exists, no future version of CC will have precedence, and thus there's really no point in trying to improve everyone's (users' *and* modders') experience.

[TouhouTorpedo]

More variants? CC uses the highest installed version of itself, so one mod updating effectively updates them all. Now, though, I can easily see a future where instead of one unified, well-meaning (both for user and modder), compatibility-checking window that most mods use, what we're likely to get is a wide variety of nag windows using separate implementations in order to circumvent this mod and retain functionality. So instead of clicking "OK" once, you'll be clicking it multiple times to clear multiple windows.

We'd only get that if the CC creators decide to go through a sad countermeasure routine when THE END USER installed this mod themselves to PREVENT the popups in the first place.

If a user downloads KAS for example, they got it for winches.

If a user downloads this, they got it to remove compatability popups.

If the user downloads KAS again, they did not download it with the intention of the latest CC implemented in KAS to override the blocker and show anyway.

So by that approach if this "counter-blocking" occurs, the CC maintainers would be the ones altering the users intent with how they play the game. Ie - CC would be the bad guys. If CC didn't get this feature, and it went "user installs KAS then pop up blocker" who's been wronged here? No one has. The user installed what they wanted and that's how they play the game.

[AetherGoddess]

[...]I see nothing wrong with what Khathar has done here. "You're modding my mod!" there's been plenty that do that in one way or another, who cares.[...]

i think it's important to look at exactly what's going on here, at a low level, (hopefully) with as little politics as possible: the maintainer of a mod has implemented CC to get an easy way to alert people of the code they are running isn't designed to run that way, and it pops up a warning saying "hey! this isn't supposed to work like this, you're on your own. click OK to continue at your own peril.". CC is designed to centralize those warnings and minimize disruption to the user, while providing easy tools for the modder to implement version support checking. this mod is globally disabling that warning by breaking CC.

the natural response from any modder is to stop using CC; if someone is subverting the code to talk to users, then they will find other methods. Maybe pop their own warning, Maybe break functions, or maybe simply disable their plugin where the version mismatches. See also ModuleManager's Winx64 must die edition. this will actually make the warnings MORE common, MORE prolific, MORE disruptive and MORE intrusive since there is no common, user tailor-able, codebase to pop up warnings, and each modder must design, code, and implement their own warning system, and decide what that behavior should be.

wither you agree or disagree with Khatharr's original goal, this will not accomplish it, and will probably make the problem worse.

[regex]

We'd only get that if the CC creators decide to go through a sad countermeasure routine when THE END USER installed this mod themselves to PREVENT the popups in the first place.

Well, some modders may not want this countermeasure to interfere with their well-meaning (for user and modder alike) preventative measure.

The user installed what they wanted and that's how they play the game.

Which would be totally harmless up until the user comes crying for support and crapping up threads because they have out-of-date mods.

E: After you found out a piece of your code wasn't working as intended wouldn't you find an alternative or rewrite it? I know I would. CC is there for a reason and if it doesn't work, someone will make a better CC.

[TouhouTorpedo]

i think it's important to look at exactly what's going on here, at a low level, (hopefully) with as little politics as possible: the maintainer of a mod has implemented CC to get an easy way to alert people of the code they are running isn't designed to run that way, and it pops up a warning saying "hey! this isn't supposed to work like this, you're on your own. click OK to continue at your own peril.". CC is designed to centralize those warnings and minimize disruption to the user, while providing easy tools for the modder to implement version support checking. this mod is globally disabling that warning by breaking CC.

the natural response from any modder is to stop using CC; if someone is subverting the code to talk to users, then they will find other methods. Maybe pop their own warning, Maybe break functions, or maybe simply disable their plugin where the version mismatches. See also ModuleManager's Winx64 must die edition. this will actually make the warnings MORE common, MORE prolific, MORE disruptive and MORE intrusive since there is no common, user tailor-able, codebase to pop up warnings, and each modder must design, code, and implement their own warning system, and decide what that behavior should be.

wither you agree or disagree with Khatharr's original goal, this will not accomplish it, and will probably make the problem worse.

No, it won't. If any modder abandons CC because of this and makes their own warning system, then they are completely retarded. The only users who will download this are objectively against pop ups, so because of that, mod maker would make another method of throwing pop ups at them? GENIUS!

This mod alone has no potential to harm the community at all. It's only the responses of mod makers and users that can do any harm here. And it's up to them to make a sensible well thought out reaction - ie if someone wanted to block pop ups, let them do so.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which would be totally harmless up until the user comes crying for support and crapping up threads because they have out-of-date mods.

I disagree. I don't make so many releases these days but some time ago I had a lot mods out. It doesn't matter what warnings you put up, what information you post, how easy you make it to install. People will DO IT WRONG. and they will fill support threads with crap. Look at my post again and I make that part clear. I've even done it and admitted so.

It's pretty rare that an update will seriously damage a mod, or even affect it at all, so CC often comes across as pointless nagging most of the time. Why go grab all your stuff again if it still works copied into the new version? (though, I have updated things if they obviously have broken ... though if they obviously have broken, why did I need CC to tell me to look for an update?)

Edited October 24, 2014 by shadowsutekh
merged double post

[Master Tao]

... if they obviously have broken, why did I need CC to tell me to look for an update?)

Because it tells you which mods you need to update.

[AetherGoddess]

No, it won't. If any modder abandons CC because of this and makes their own warning system, then they are completely retarded. The only users who will download this are objectively against pop ups, so because of that, mod maker would make another method of throwing pop ups at them? GENIUS!

This mod alone has no potential to harm the community at all. It's only the responses of mod makers and users that can do any harm here. And it's up to them to make a sensible well thought out reaction - ie if someone wanted to block pop ups, let them do so.

i appreciate what your intending, that users should control, to the fullest extent possible, their own experience. however, simply asserting that "any modder [who] abandons CC because of this and makes their own warning system [is] completely retarded" won't make it true. if you make a mod, and feel a compatibility warning is required, then you're going to make a compatibility warning. full stop, bar none. you have to remember, most of the people writing code for mods are taking someone else's (Squad's) API, to which they have very little documentation, and by pure force of will and intellect, making it dance like a ballerina. FAR completely replaces the entire atmospheric physics system; you don't do that without having some serious oomph behind your will and intellect. Principia is replacing the orbital mechanics system with N-Body, research grade, simulation systems; that person isn't going to accept "no popups or retarded" as an answer after ripping and rebuilding (from scratch) a core game system.

The harm isn't actually from popups or no popups. the harm is the fact that a tool which mediated communication between users and mod makers is now unpredictable. The harm is already done, and we (you and i both) are simply arguing over the ashes.

it kinda doesn't even matter if it is actually destroyed or not, since the mod maker must act as if it is broken; see NathanKell post above: there is no point in using CC while this exists, so mod makers wishing to display a compatibility warning cannot rely on CC to do it. the incentives in play acting upon various community members don't respect your viewpoint of what is or is not retarded behavior.

The pop-up, the blocking, the warnings, user choice vs modder choice; all of that is immaterial in the face of the fact that people who are writing code can't rely on CC to act as they expect it to, and so can't use it.

Edited October 24, 2014 by AetherGoddess
clarification and additional examples

[Motokid600]

... I.. just click okay.

[regex]

Some great words

Thanks for saying that.