How are people progressing?

[IBBoard]

Yeah, that's the one major annoyance I have with Subversion - conflicts mangling files like that. I'm sure there must be a better way, especially since a lot of tools don't have decent conflict resolution (Eclipse is the best I've come across in my Java work, but even that wasn't fantastic).

I'm surprised that it needs to convert the project, although I guess I tried SharpDevelop at the weekend and it wasn't happy with something. If you can revert the file to the SVN version, then load VS2008, then send me a copy of the modified/converted/working .csproj file (or just the diff, which TortoiseSVN should be able to give you) then I'll have a look at it. I'm just sticking with 2005 because a) I've got it and b) we're targeting .Net 2.0.

[snowblizz]

Ya I think I got it to work now despite missing references and stuff.

Unfortunately I decided to go "cleans slate" yesterday so any problems are sort of gone.

[IBBoard]

We're getting off-topic here, but if it was a merge issue then it wasn't important. If your "clean slate" still needed an import/change of the .csproj file then that'd be useful.

From now on, lets try to stick to the topic, though

[IBBoard]

Now that we're hopefully approaching RC1 I'll give this topic a kick.

I'm still the only developer I know of, but the Windows version seems to be slowly improving. I'm also improving MonoDevelop while I'm at it by feeding back suggestions, ideas and comments, so a wider community is benefiting from my development work.

I have been out of touch for a few days (tidying up the house on Thursday before my parents visited from Friday, then a short holiday on Friday, Saturday and Sunday then relaxing and enjoying the last of my birthday on Sunday evening) but I'm hoping to get back on track and releasing another version soon...

[snowblizz]

I may just have been able to make my first hack of the code. Nothing fancy so far.
Yes indeed! Once again I've prevailed over the computers. Wooooooo!

Now to try and send you the fix...

Fixes sent.

[IBBoard]

Cool, thanks for the fixes, they look good. Don't know how I missed them before. Hopefully we'll get a few more people helping out with the source code before we get to v1.0!

[IBBoard]

Time to drag this one up again, I think.

I've been working on the GTK# interface a bit recently, and am now trying to clear my list of "accepted" tickets that were part complete. Everyone else seems to have gone a bit quiet.

Sorry if you've been quiet because I've not been posting, but I've been trying to focus on adding to the code base and letting other people work where they want to and bring up their anything they may be thinking of by themselves. Maybe that wasn't the best decision, but I still find it a difficult balance between getting new things working and communicating to the outside world. Doing the former gets us more to discuss with the latter, but without the latter then we have these quiet patches :\

[snowblizz]

In part I've been holding out to see some progress. I saw there's progress on requirements, but are they done? I am not that good at reading code so I'm not so sure. And I didn't feel like being pushy and ask how it's coming along.

Had a real bad case of the PhD-blues too which certainly hasn't helped.

[IBBoard]

My brother's just finished his PhD (just barely in time!). I know it's not always the way people think, but breaks are beneficial in the long run Also, I pointed my brother to the Linux Format "burnout" article, which is aimed at computer geeks but he forwarded to his PhD friends.

Requirements are partially complete. We've got some requirements written and in place, but not the full set. Our master ticket is Ticket 27. If you can think of any more requirements that need to be handled then throw in a ticket and I'll take a look. If you're not sure what I mean with a ticket then either dig up the old requirements topic if it doesn't make the flow suddenly jump (I think we had one) or start a new topic.

[snowblizz]

Could use a practical example of requirement syntax. Can't really decipher it from the code & schema. Or I think I have the syntax down, but it doesn't seem to to take.

Code: Select all

         <requirements>
            <requirement requirementName="UnitRequiresAtLeastNUnitsRequirement">
                                <data>1,Empire2</data>
                                </requirement>
         </requirements>

?

[IBBoard]

I'd normally say "ah, that's where the unit tests help out because they'll show you how it is supposed to work"...only the unit tests have to handle requirements from any source and so don't show you the XML.

It looks like you nearly had it. It should be something like this:

Code: Select all

         <requirements>
            <requirement requirementName="RequiresNoMoreThanNOfUnitType">
                <data>Empire2:1</data>
            </requirement>
         </requirements>

and if you want to depend on multiple units then you need to add a pipe ("|") between the definitions. Also, if you're only requiring one of something then you don't need ":1", just a pipe-separated list of the IDs will do.

I'll try to do some documentation over the next few days and update the sample data file. We won't get obvious coding progress over that time (unless Clutch is around and has any free time) but I might have been overlooking it a bit too much.



[edit] Actually, we do have some test data that show how to use it From looking at the code, that's the only one that has a factory so far, though.

[snowblizz]

Ah. I did not get that update down, or more likely overwrote it with my own set of nifty little datafiles. I keep copy/pasting my whole inventory of datafiles into the data folders.

What with only one requirement working don't worry about documenting it now. Keep at the coding instead. It's not like there's a huge amount of datafile authors flailing around. With this, I think the wast majority (ie me) is now up to speed with requirements.

Decided to finally complete the instructions on how to make datafiles. Maybe it'll inspire some more people to have a go.

[IBBoard]

Sounds good. If people can document stuff, write tutorials or do screencasts of using apps or anything like that then it all helps I'll get back to the code now...

[clutch110]

Hey guys, sorry for my absence. I have been having some family issues that require my attention. At the same time my oldest son and I have broken into embedded electronics. I have finally found something that he and I can work together on and it has become a priority for me. Subsequently my interest in 40k has waned and my motivation to work on WarFoundry has followed.

However, I will still participate on the boards and take on small projects. Nothing beats the sense of accomplishment of getting a feature completed and checked in. Right now I am about a month away from completing my first embedded electronics project and then I will dedicate some time to WarFoundry again.

Clutch

[IBBoard]

Good to see you back. I never really got into embedded electronics - too much fiddling and not enough ideas outside "thing that goes beep but cost a lot to make" It must be quite a project to take a month, though.

Even if you can't write things, hopefully the new nightly builds will let you help test things Even if you've not got time for that, general input and ideas are always welcomed, and different parties may have blinkered views on things and can need a third-party to clear things up.