Have Item MAnager for food and booze not show creatables

Yeah, I know what you're thinking, "It already has that check box!" The biggest annoyance I have with it is while it shows items that you currently have, it still asks if you want to make items. Let's say I have 1 roll in the hay and I can make 3 more. It will show (4 possible, 1 current). I check "no create", and the list of drink I have narrows to only those I actually have, including the roll in the hay. I click enqueue and it asks how many I would like, starting with 4.

I don't want to create drinks, I thought I made that perfectly clear by checking "no create" option. Once I have to tell it I only want the 1 drink, it will then disappear from my list.

When I check "no create", I honestly expect the possible creations to not be considered at all. Instead of (4 possible, 1 current) it should only show (1 current). Instead of asking me if I want to queue 4 drinks, I want it to just queue the one drink since I only have one already made. This has been bugging me for a while now and I wanted to ask if there was any reason it is NOT like that?

Hrmn. Actually, I think that qualifies as a bug.

I looked at the code, and I think I found where this happens, but I don't really understand how it works, how it could be changed, nor what would be the consequences (in other places of Mafia) of changing this.

To me, it looks more like a case of inconsistent behavior that would benefit from being changed than a real bug though.

It looks like a check should be added on lines 373-374 of ItemManagePanel.java
where isTally seems to be true if something that appears in "Session Results" is being processed. Maybe we should add a isUseItem boolean and check if the "no create" checkbox is... checked (hard to avoid repetition here)?

EDIT: it was in ItemManagePanel.java, not in UseItemEnqueuePanel.java

Repetitive repeating is repeatedly redundant. But in this case, you're forgiven.

Seriously though, you mean all this time that's what it was supposed to be doing?

I only meant that this is not a bug (in the sense that the code is doing something it wasn't designed to do), if I understood what is causing that behavior.

I guess this should be a Feature Request, and it seems like it would be a sensible and probably easy change (for someone who knows what he/she is doing).

Well, I made the fuss about it, I'll make the FReq.