Reroute trade ships when destination port is no longer valid#3908
Open
lnoss wants to merge 4 commits into
Open
Reroute trade ships when destination port is no longer valid#3908lnoss wants to merge 4 commits into
lnoss wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
Contributor
WalkthroughTradeShipExecution.tick records the ship's current tile early, replaces inline nearest-port selection with a private findNearestValidPort helper, and re-routes ships when destinations or ownership become invalid; ships are deleted if no valid port is found. ChangesTrade Ship Re-routing Flow
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Tick as TradeShipExecution.tick
participant Finder as findNearestValidPort
participant Game as Game.manhattanDist / players
participant Ship as TradeShipUnit
Tick->>Ship: read curTile, check dstPort and capture
Tick->>Finder: request nearest valid port (curTile, player filter)
Finder->>Game: enumerate players & ports, check water reachability
Finder-->>Tick: nearest port or null
alt found
Tick->>Ship: setTargetUnit(dstPort), touch(), clear motionPlanDst
else not found
Tick->>Ship: delete()
end
Estimated code review effort🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. Tip 💬 Introducing Slack Agent: The best way for teams to turn conversations into code.Slack Agent is built on CodeRabbit's deep understanding of your code, so your team can collaborate across the entire SDLC without losing context.
Built for teams:
One agent for your entire SDLC. Right inside Slack. Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@src/core/execution/TradeShipExecution.ts`:
- Around line 89-129: The PR modifies TradeShipExecution rerouting logic but
lacks tests; add deterministic unit tests covering the three behaviors: (1)
embargo/inactive destination reroute where wasCaptured is false — set up a trade
ship with an inactive or embargoed _dstPort and verify findNearestValidPort is
called, _dstPort is updated, tradeShip.setTargetUnit and touch are invoked, and
motionPlanDst is reset; (2) captured-ship reroute where wasCaptured is true —
simulate capture so tradeShipOwner !== dstPortOwner or _dstPort inactive, ensure
findNearestValidPort returns the owner’s port, _dstPort updates,
setTargetUnit/touch called and motionPlanDst cleared; and (3) no-valid-port
deletion behavior for both cases — have findNearestValidPort return null and
assert tradeShip.delete(false) is called and active becomes false; target tests
at TradeShipExecution and exercise findNearestValidPort, wasCaptured,
tradeShip.setTargetUnit, tradeShip.delete, and motionPlanDst effects to make
them deterministic.
- Around line 94-97: The reroute filter uses the wrong trade direction: change
the predicate passed to findNearestValidPort so it matches the reroute
precondition (use tradeShipOwner.canTrade(p) rather than
p.canTrade(tradeShipOwner)) and still exclude the original owner; e.g. call
findNearestValidPort(curTile, (p) => p !== this.origOwner &&
tradeShipOwner.canTrade(p)) so trade direction is consistent with the
precondition (referencing findNearestValidPort, tradeShipOwner, origOwner,
canTrade).
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: ddc62b0d-f89a-433e-8c8b-594c1b2e3fc9
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
src/core/execution/TradeShipExecution.ts
github-project-automation
Bot
moved this from Triage
to Development
in OpenFront Release Management
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@tests/core/executions/TradeShipExecution.test.ts`:
- Line 145: The test's spyOf on game.manhattanDist returns a constant 10, making
all ports equidistant and preventing verification of nearest-port selection;
change the mock to return different distances based on the input tile
coordinates (inspect the two tile args in the mock implementation and return
smaller values for the intended nearest port coordinates and larger values for
others) so that TradeShipExecution's rerouting logic is forced to pick the
correct nearest valid port; update the spyOn for manhattanDist used in
TradeShipExecution.test to a conditional implementation that distinguishes tile
pairs.
- Line 19: currentTarget is declared outside the test lifecycle and not reset,
allowing state to leak between tests; update the test suite's beforeEach to
explicitly set currentTarget = null so each test starts with a clean value
(locate the beforeEach in TradeShipExecution.test.ts and add the reset for the
currentTarget variable declared above it).
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 8fc3a03e-31b8-454f-8491-f6ce256fc729
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
tests/core/executions/TradeShipExecution.test.ts
lnoss
changed the title
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.
Description:
The trade embargo system adds depth to the game's economy, but it also penalizes players who specifically choose their trading partners. A player might decide to stop trading with players for whatever reason, thereby negatively impacting them financially.
However, by ceasing trade with the other player, they lose their trade ships. This is very disadvantageous if you are a small or medium-sized player, since you are already in a potentially unfavorable situation (not many ports, eventually no train connections) and on top of that you have to wait for the game engine to spawn your new ships (in a spawn pool shared with every other players) that will have to travel a long way again before you can recover the lost money.
By rerouting ships to the nearest valid trading port, we avoid this unnecessary loss of gold and ensure that players who use embargos wisely aren't disrupted or slowed in their gameplay.
redirectownships.mp4
To prevent an unfair advantage, the converse is true: any ships that might be coming from the other player toward our port will also be redirected.
unownedshipsredirected.mp4
I couldn't decide whether to choose the nearest valid port in both general cases (embargo or invalid destination port), or the nearest valid port belonging to the same player (the ship could potentially be rerouted to a port owned by another player that is very close to the ship).
Please complete the following:
Please put your Discord username so you can be contacted if a bug or regression is found:
DISCORD_USERNAME