Jump to content

Choonster

Moderators
  • Posts

    5120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    75

Posts posted by Choonster

  1. 19 minutes ago, Sweetmimike said:

    Hello,

    Thank you for your anwsers, I finally succeeded. I have just one more question : 

    Why in the code below, the parameter TOOL is not considered ? Indeed, when I try to generate loot from a cow, it generates beef whereas I added a parameter TOOL with a diamond sword with fire aspect, so It should generate Steak.

    If you look at the loot table for cows, you'll see that it checks whether the entity is on fire to determine whether to drop steak; not whether the tool has Fire Aspect.

  2. The second argument of withExistingParent is the path to a model file to use as a parent, not a texture. For basic block items, the model normally uses the block model as the parent, rather than specifying individual textures.

    I use this helper method in my BlockStateProvider implementation to generate block item models that simply extend the block model. You can see an example of this here.

    On a side note, the DeferredRegister instance should always be created in the same class as it's used in; don't put the DeferredRegister and RegistryObject fields in separate classes.

    • Thanks 1
  3. On 1/25/2021 at 1:47 AM, ChampionAsh5357 said:

    My only comment would be on OpenClientScreenMessage as the Minecraft instance can just be obtained inside the method itself. This is still 'safe' I believe, but we should avoid calling anything that might only be available on the client that is not isolated in a different class. This is my opinion as it still won't be loaded unless on the physical client.

     

    Thanks, that makes sense.

  4. 19 hours ago, ChampionAsh5357 said:

    From what I understand, this is not the correct way to use DistExecutor. For the case where you can't supply a runnable or supplier, DistExecutor#unsafe* should be used instead. This will supply a runnable of what you want to execute (e.g. () -> () -> //Do things). This does not verify nor guarantee that the code is completely safe to access; however, if the runnable executes another method that is isolated in a different class, it is 'safe' since classloading will not occur. So, the proper way to implement the code above is DistExecutor.unsafeRunWhenOn(Dist.CLIENT, () -> () -> ClientScreenManager#openScreen).

     

    Thanks, I think that makes sense.

     

    I've tried to follow this advice and clean up all my DistExecutor code in this commit, does this look correct?

  5. I have a packet that's sent to the client to open a GUI, which I'm using DistExecutor to do.

     

    The packet's handler method does the following:

    DistExecutor.safeRunWhenOn(Dist.CLIENT, () -> ClientOnlyNetworkMethods.openClientScreen(message))

     

    ClientOnlyNetworkMethods.openClientScreen currently looks like this:

    public static DistExecutor.SafeRunnable openClientScreen(final OpenClientScreenMessage message) {
    	return new DistExecutor.SafeRunnable() {
    		@Override
    		public void run() {
    			ClientScreenManager.openScreen(message.getId(), message.getAdditionalData(), Minecraft.getInstance());
    		}
    	};
    }

     

    ClientScreenManager is a client-only class that handles opening the GUI.

     

    As you can see from the code, I need to pass arguments from the packet to the client-only method; which rules out using a method reference as the SafeRunnable implementation.

     

    When I replace the anonymous class implementation of SafeRunnable in ClientOnlyNetworkMethods.openClientScreen with a lambda, DistExecutor.validateSafeReferent throws an "Unsafe Referent usage found in safe referent method" exception. From what I can see, using any non-lambda implementation of SafeReferent simply bypasses the safety checks in validateSafeReferent but doesn't necessarily mean that the code is safe.

     

    The current code with the anonymous class does seem to work on the dedicated server, but is this the correct way to use DistExecutor; or is there a better way to do it?

  6. 44 minutes ago, diesieben07 said:

    This is why getShareTag should be used for the capability data, not some custom system.

    You don't have any control over when and how ItemStacks are sent over the network, getShareTag is the only real place.

     

    Part of the idea with my system was to allow syncing capabilities attached to arbitrary items, not just items that know about their capabilities. What would you recommend for capabilities attached to items from Vanilla or another mod?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.