The newest major revision will likely be the one with the most up-to-date data.
The differences between PT2 and PT3 are listed on the wiki page linked in the original post. The differences between PT1 and PT2 are primarily a larger data set and different set naming conventions.
1. Unless an item set is cached, I'm unable to retrieve the value associated with the item. For instance, if I don't proceed the following with a call to pt:GetSetTable("Misc.Lockboxes"):
local val = pt:ItemInSet(link,"Misc.Lockboxes")
val will be a boolean. If I cache it with GetSetTable, it will return the value properly. Is this by design?
2. I'm now getting an error whenever I call GetSetTable. Using the following:
pt:GetSetTable("Consumable")
produces an error. I don't remember the exact text, but it is being thrown by line 160 of PeriodicTable-3.0.lua. The error message is something like 'table expected, got nil'.
1. Unless an item set is cached, I'm unable to retrieve the value associated with the item. For instance, if I don't proceed the following with a call to pt:GetSetTable("Misc.Lockboxes"):
local val = pt:ItemInSet(link,"Misc.Lockboxes")
val will be a boolean. If I cache it with GetSetTable, it will return the value properly. Is this by design?
Fixed, thanks.
2. I'm now getting an error whenever I call GetSetTable. Using the following:
pt:GetSetTable("Consumable")
produces an error. I don't remember the exact text, but it is being thrown by line 160 of PeriodicTable-3.0.lua. The error message is something like 'table expected, got nil'.
Thanks.
That exact code snippet causes no error. However, I saw and fixed somewhere where there might've been an error with an invalid set name.
I've converted both Mendeleev and AutoBar to PT3 locally, but I have not committed them yet, for different reasons;
1. It seems to slow down operations considerably. With PT1, Mendeleev produces no lag when you mouse over an item, and with PT2, AutoBar produces no lag on my system when you leave combat or loot a corpse; both those situations produce lag for me after I converted them to PT3.
2. AutoBar needs a few extra food categories that were available in PT2, but are not available in PT3, so Toadkiller does not want my patch. I don't care about those food categories, however.
In any case, I'm sure the lag issues could be fixed if the addons were re-coded for PT3, as it is now I've just blindly converted it to PT3 and made it work.
I am busy converting AutoBar to PT3 which means messing with PT3. So a few questions:
1) Does Anesthetic Poison really need its own category? For a rogue is it any different form any other posion that instantly deals nature damage with no other effect?
2) The food & water categories are set up based on origin. They let you answer the question "where was this purchased?" AutoBar only cares about usage. So for people food we want to prefer (cheap) conjured over equivalent regular food, and scarce & precious buff food needs to be separate. For pets we do not feed them buff food because they dont get the buff. So the fact that a buff is a cheese is not a useful distinction. What type of buff it is is what matters.
3) Given all of 2) above what other mods use PT3 & would actually care about some buff food being a cheese? If none then I would like to reorganize the foods so the buff fooods are broken out by buff type. Type matters because you dont want to give mages str buff for example.
4) For clarity I would like to modify
Consumable.Food.Edible.*.Bonus
to be
Consumable.Food.Edible.*.Well Fed
Well Fed here means Str + Spi, NOT the words "Well Fed" in the tooltip.
If anyone is using the Bonus one right now let me know so I can coordinate the change.
5) For historical reasons AutoBar went down the wrong route for buff items by specifying potion.buff.blah or scroll.buff.blah. This made its way into PT as well. As with food, the interesting fact is that you can instantly get a buff from using some item. The type of buff is important, not the type of item. I am going to revamp AutoBar to do this correctly.
So again, if you care about the current distinctions let me know. Otherwise I will upgrade PT3 to have buff type be higher up the naming hierarchy:
Consumable.Buff.Armor.Potion
and not
Consumable.Potion.Buff.Armor
For AutoBar purposes once you know it is an Armor buff for instance, the only other interesting thing would be if it is targetable, like say the ungoro crystals.
I am busy converting AutoBar to PT3 which means messing with PT3. So a few questions:
1) Does Anesthetic Poison really need its own category? For a rogue is it any different form any other posion that instantly deals nature damage with no other effect?
Not really, no; it's there simply because all the poisons had their own category. But if it'd make more sense grouped in with instant poison, then by all means, go for it :)
2) The food & water categories are set up based on origin. They let you answer the question "where was this purchased?" AutoBar only cares about usage. So for people food we want to prefer (cheap) conjured over equivalent regular food, and scarce & precious buff food needs to be separate. For pets we do not feed them buff food because they dont get the buff. So the fact that a buff is a cheese is not a useful distinction. What type of buff it is is what matters.
3) Given all of 2) above what other mods use PT3 & would actually care about some buff food being a cheese? If none then I would like to reorganize the foods so the buff fooods are broken out by buff type. Type matters because you dont want to give mages str buff for example.
The primary reason for categorizing by type is for hunter pet feeding purposes. But there's no reason we can't cater to both needs.
Just need to take, for example, Consumable.Food.Edible.Misc.Bonus and split it into Consumable.Food.Edible.Misc.Bonus.Stamina and Consumable.Food.Edible.Misc.Bonus.Agility etc etc, then make multisets such as ["Consumable.Food.Bonus.Agility"] = "m,Consumable.Food.Edible.Fish.Bonus.Agility,Consumable.Food.Edible.Misc.Bonus.Agility"
The primary reason for categorizing by type is for hunter pet feeding purposes. But there's no reason we can't cater to both needs.
Just need to take, for example, Consumable.Food.Edible.Misc.Bonus and split it into Consumable.Food.Edible.Misc.Bonus.Stamina and Consumable.Food.Edible.Misc.Bonus.Agility etc etc, then make multisets such as ["Consumable.Food.Bonus.Agility"] = "m,Consumable.Food.Edible.Fish.Bonus.Agility,Consumable.Food.Edible.Misc.Bonus.Agility"
I am trying to say there is only one need, which is to feed pets & people. Pets can eat the inedible ones. Pets only eat certain types. The issue is foods with a bonus. While a pet certainly can be fed a bonus food they get no benefit from it and the vast majority of people can't afford to feed their pets such expensive fare.
So why even categorize things that way? why not make it simple and split out the buff foods? The choices made here do have an impact on maintainability and performance. 5 million little categories would suckalot.
Quote from Rabbit »
Why? I've already done it here.
Where? On your local machine? I see no branch of it in SVN or pending update in the itemlist file.
Actually, I have already spent a lot of time converting AutoBar to PT2. I ensured that not a single item was missed, and I corrected every error in PT2 I found in the process. Now I find myself having to do this all over again for PT3. I am not happy about it because PT3 has no advantage whatsoever over PT2 as far as AutoBar is concerned except that if everyone converts to it and it is collectively maintained then that is a good thing.
So I am just going to add the missing categories AutoBar needs as duplicates. I really am not willing to spend time on this again so soon after the PT2 conversion. Especially since I took the time to get everything split out correctly in PT2 already.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Should we always use the newest major Version of PT? Or will PT1.0 be enough for certain tasks?
What are the differences between PT1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 anyway?
The differences between PT2 and PT3 are listed on the wiki page linked in the original post. The differences between PT1 and PT2 are primarily a larger data set and different set naming conventions.
That said, most addons that use PT2 can be converted easily.
http://wow.allakhazam.com/db/item.html?witem=23720&locale=enUS;source=live
Yup...just wanted to find out if I was able to delete 2 after installing 3. :)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium1. Unless an item set is cached, I'm unable to retrieve the value associated with the item. For instance, if I don't proceed the following with a call to pt:GetSetTable("Misc.Lockboxes"):
val will be a boolean. If I cache it with GetSetTable, it will return the value properly. Is this by design?
2. I'm now getting an error whenever I call GetSetTable. Using the following:
pt:GetSetTable("Consumable")produces an error. I don't remember the exact text, but it is being thrown by line 160 of PeriodicTable-3.0.lua. The error message is something like 'table expected, got nil'.
Thanks.
That exact code snippet causes no error. However, I saw and fixed somewhere where there might've been an error with an invalid set name.
autobar, arkinvetory use pt 2
so i have to use all pt versions at the moment :(
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium1. It seems to slow down operations considerably. With PT1, Mendeleev produces no lag when you mouse over an item, and with PT2, AutoBar produces no lag on my system when you leave combat or loot a corpse; both those situations produce lag for me after I converted them to PT3.
2. AutoBar needs a few extra food categories that were available in PT2, but are not available in PT3, so Toadkiller does not want my patch. I don't care about those food categories, however.
In any case, I'm sure the lag issues could be fixed if the addons were re-coded for PT3, as it is now I've just blindly converted it to PT3 and made it work.
Hopefully Nymbia has some thoughts.
Could you upload the converted mendy to a branch?
1) Does Anesthetic Poison really need its own category? For a rogue is it any different form any other posion that instantly deals nature damage with no other effect?
2) The food & water categories are set up based on origin. They let you answer the question "where was this purchased?" AutoBar only cares about usage. So for people food we want to prefer (cheap) conjured over equivalent regular food, and scarce & precious buff food needs to be separate. For pets we do not feed them buff food because they dont get the buff. So the fact that a buff is a cheese is not a useful distinction. What type of buff it is is what matters.
3) Given all of 2) above what other mods use PT3 & would actually care about some buff food being a cheese? If none then I would like to reorganize the foods so the buff fooods are broken out by buff type. Type matters because you dont want to give mages str buff for example.
4) For clarity I would like to modify
Consumable.Food.Edible.*.Bonus
to be
Consumable.Food.Edible.*.Well Fed
Well Fed here means Str + Spi, NOT the words "Well Fed" in the tooltip.
If anyone is using the Bonus one right now let me know so I can coordinate the change.
5) For historical reasons AutoBar went down the wrong route for buff items by specifying potion.buff.blah or scroll.buff.blah. This made its way into PT as well. As with food, the interesting fact is that you can instantly get a buff from using some item. The type of buff is important, not the type of item. I am going to revamp AutoBar to do this correctly.
So again, if you care about the current distinctions let me know. Otherwise I will upgrade PT3 to have buff type be higher up the naming hierarchy:
Consumable.Buff.Armor.Potion
and not
Consumable.Potion.Buff.Armor
For AutoBar purposes once you know it is an Armor buff for instance, the only other interesting thing would be if it is targetable, like say the ungoro crystals.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWhy? I've already done it here.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumOh, didn't see this before now, yeah, let me do that.
The primary reason for categorizing by type is for hunter pet feeding purposes. But there's no reason we can't cater to both needs.
Just need to take, for example, Consumable.Food.Edible.Misc.Bonus and split it into Consumable.Food.Edible.Misc.Bonus.Stamina and Consumable.Food.Edible.Misc.Bonus.Agility etc etc, then make multisets such as ["Consumable.Food.Bonus.Agility"] = "m,Consumable.Food.Edible.Fish.Bonus.Agility,Consumable.Food.Edible.Misc.Bonus.Agility"
I am trying to say there is only one need, which is to feed pets & people. Pets can eat the inedible ones. Pets only eat certain types. The issue is foods with a bonus. While a pet certainly can be fed a bonus food they get no benefit from it and the vast majority of people can't afford to feed their pets such expensive fare.
So why even categorize things that way? why not make it simple and split out the buff foods? The choices made here do have an impact on maintainability and performance. 5 million little categories would suckalot.
Where? On your local machine? I see no branch of it in SVN or pending update in the itemlist file.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI asked you on IRC if I could commit it or not (why are you not there now?), and you said no.
http://wowace.com/trac/browser/branches/AutoBar/PT3
So I am just going to add the missing categories AutoBar needs as duplicates. I really am not willing to spend time on this again so soon after the PT2 conversion. Especially since I took the time to get everything split out correctly in PT2 already.