Ensure GetMerchantMagicItems preserves seed (alternative to #2529) - #2534
Merged
Interkarma merged 1 commit intoAug 8, 2023
Merged
Conversation
GetMerchantMagicItems() sets the random seed based on the current day. Any activity reliant on random that occurs after opening the mages item seller will always have the same set of outcomes. Preserve the seed.
Owner
|
Thank you Hazel! |
Interkarma
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 8, 2023
#2534 is same fix but at place where seed is broken.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
GetMerchantMagicItems() sets the random seed based on the current day. Any activity reliant on random sequence which occurs after opening the mages item seller will always have the same set of outcomes. Preserve the seed to avoid this.
This is an alternative fix to the one contributed in PR #2529 to limit the effect the change may have on the rest of the codebase. I am pretty sure there would be no ill effects from the other approach, but it's possible and given how close to release of v1.0 I am very cautious.
All credit to @chloelcdev for finding the issue, and contributing a perfectly fine fix.