Have Item MAnager for food and booze not show creatables

Fluxxdog

Fluxxdog

Active member
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?
 
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
Code: 
itemCount =
	isTally ? ( (AdventureResult) items[ i ] ).getCount( KoLConstants.inventory ) : ( (AdventureResult) items[ i ] ).getCount();
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
 
Last edited:
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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top