Anonymous Login
2019-11-21 08:49 UTC
  

View Issue Details [ Jump to Notes ] [ Issue History ] [ Print ]
IDProjectCategoryView StatusDate SubmittedLast Update
0002048OpenClonkEngine - C4Scriptpublic2018-12-11 13:022019-06-23 18:27
ReporterMarky 
Assigned ToMarky 
PrioritynormalSeveritymajorReproducibilityalways
StatusresolvedResolutionfixed 
Product Version 
Target VersionFixed in Version9.0 
Summary0002048: Find_ID() does ignore objects under unknown circumstances.
DescriptionThe following script caused the problem - the object is not in a separate layer or something:

public func Get(object to)
{
    AssertDefinitionContext();

    // Works only the second time the player aims, which is really weird...
    // the cursor object exists, and can be found via Find_ActionTarget()
    // but Find_ID ignores it
    //
    // return FindObject(Find_ID(this), Find_ActionTarget(to));
    for (var attached in FindObjects(Find_ActionTarget(to)))
    {
        if (attached->GetID() == this)
        {
            return attached;
        }
    }
    return nil;
}

TagsNo tags attached.
Attached Files

-Relationships
+Relationships

-Notes

~0006233

Foaly (developer)

2019-04-29 08:40

 I can't reproduce this.
Do you have a full test case?

~0006235

Clonkonaut (developer)

2019-04-29 22:11

 Shouldn't Find_ID(this) be Find_ID(this->GetID())?

~0006240

Foaly (developer)

2019-04-30 06:31

 As far as I can tell it is called within the definition, for example:
Ore->Get(whatever);

In my tests, both versions return the same object, so the above code works.

But there is probably a special case, where Find_ID fails, but I can't reproduce it.

~0006242

Clonkonaut (developer)

2019-04-30 07:38

 And 'this' in a definition call is 100% equivalent to an ID?

~0006243

Foaly (developer)

2019-04-30 07:44

 Well, I'd expect Find_ID(x) to find all objects where GetID() == x.
No matter what 'x' actually is.

If there are special cases, we should at least note it in the documentation.

~0006245

Clonkonaut (developer)

2019-04-30 08:25

 My question is not about how Find_ID() finds objects but if the code in the example is correct.

Meaning if Find_ID(this) is equivalent to Find_ID(this->GetID()) when used in a definition call or if you have to use this->GetID() regardless of whether or not this a definition or object call. Meaning that 'this' is never of the type ID.

~0006246

Foaly (developer)

2019-04-30 09:16

 Yes, but in the example, the

attached->GetID() == this

is true.

~0006248

Marky (developer)

2019-05-01 11:16

 So, I had a look at the code in order to solve it:

This function is called to check whether the object is found with Find_ID(def):

bool C4FindObjectDef::Check(C4Object *pObj)
{
    return pObj->GetPrototype() == def;
}

And this is what GetID() does:

static C4PropList* FnGetID(C4Object *Obj)
{
    // Return id of object
    return Obj->GetPrototype();
}

Finally, using this->GetID() is not viable (I'd assume that it is the same when you call that from an ID from within its script):

ERROR: GetID: must be called from object context
 by: Scenario->Scenario
-> Scenario::Rock->GetID()

I'll try the code in question again, this time with log output (:O)

~0006249

Marky (developer)

2019-05-01 11:52

 At first I thought that C4FindObject::Find and C4FindObject::FindMany seem to make the difference, but here is some more log output that helps:

// Various log outputs from creating the object
AddTo: Object(95), Be Object(8)
Added new cursor Object(95)
// Cyclic output for finding objects
Get: [10, CMC_Virtual_Cursor], [14, Object(8), 0] => nil / []
Get: [10, CMC_Virtual_Cursor], [14, Object(8), 0] => nil / []
Get: [10, CMC_Virtual_Cursor], [14, Object(8), 0] => nil / []
Get: [10, CMC_Virtual_Cursor], [14, Object(8), 0] => nil / []
Get: [10, CMC_Virtual_Cursor], [14, Object(8), 0] => nil / []
Get: [10, CMC_Virtual_Cursor], [14, Object(8), 0] => nil / []
// Then decided to do a small investigation
-> Scenario::Object(95)
 = Object(95)
-> Scenario::FindObjects(Find_ID(CMC_Virtual_Cursor))
 = []
-> Scenario::FindObjects(Find_ActionTarget(Object(8)))
 = [Object(95)]
-> Scenario::Object(95)->GetID()
 = CMC_Virtual_Cursor

// So the object is still there and has the right ID, but it is not found by Find_ID
-> Scenario::FindObjects(Find_ID(CMC_Virtual_Cursor), Find_AnyLayer())
 = [] // Still not there? Weird!
-> Scenario::Object(95).Visibility
 = 2 // OK, we have VIS_Owner, maybe that was the cause?
Scenario::Object(95).Visibility = VIS_All
 = 0
-> Scenario::FindObjects(Find_ID(CMC_Virtual_Cursor))
 = []
-> Scenario::FindObjects(Find_ID(Object(95)->GetID()))
 = []
// Then (game still paused), only after I duplicate the object it is found:
-> Scenario::FindObjects(Find_ID(CMC_Virtual_Cursor))
 = [Object(99), Object(95)]

Maybe this is a weird problem in the object list?

~0006250

Marky (developer)

2019-05-01 12:01

 Updated the log output a bit:

Using the live code from the above example:
// First aiming
[13:54:31] AddTo: Object(96), Be Object(8)
[13:54:31] Added new cursor Object(96)
[13:54:31] Get: [10, CMC_Virtual_Cursor], [14, Object(8), 0] => nil / [] of Find_ID [], Find_ActionTarget [Object(96)]

Now with the dead code again:
// First aiming
[13:57:23] AddTo: Object(95), Be Object(8)
[13:57:23] Added new cursor Object(95)
[13:57:23] Get: [10, CMC_Virtual_Cursor], [14, Object(8), 0] => nil / [] of Find_ID [], Find_ActionTarget [Object(95)]
// Second aiming
[13:57:25] AddTo: Object(104), Be Object(8)
[13:57:25] Added new cursor Object(104)
[13:57:25] Get: [10, CMC_Virtual_Cursor], [14, Object(8), 0] => Object(104) / [Object(104), Object(95)] of Find_ID [Object(104), Object(95)], Find_ActionTarget [Object(104), Object(95)]

~0006251

Foaly (developer)

2019-05-02 07:08

 Since after duplicating the object it is found, maybe it's a problem with this function:

bool C4FindObjectDef::IsImpossible()
{
    return !def || !def->GetDef() || !def->GetDef()->Count;
}

Probably the count is kept incorrectly, and duplicating the object increases it.
Since you are able to reproduce it, you could check that.

~0006252

Marky (developer)

2019-05-02 16:45

 Can confirm. I removed the last condition and it gets found the first time. Now let's see where the count is updated incorrectly...

~0006253

Marky (developer)

2019-05-02 17:37

 Ok, after more debugging I found out that this scenario has, somehow, a setup where AssignRemoval is called twice and the definition count decreases from 1 to 0 to -1. Therefore, when the new object is created, we get a count of 0...

~0006254

Marky (developer)

2019-05-02 17:59

Last edited: 2019-05-02 18:21

View 4 revisions

 Just an update:
The part that causes the problem is:

func AttachTargetLost()
{
   Log("Attach target lost");
   RemoveObject();
   Log("Attach target removal done");
   return;
}

With additional log output in the engine (next local build with stack trace):

[19:49:16] Attach target lost
[19:49:16] Decrease Def->Count of .../Cursors.ocd (AssignRemoval) Object 16: 0
[19:49:16] Attach target removal done
[19:49:16] Decrease Def->Count of .../Cursors.ocd (AssignRemoval) Object 16: -1

Update:

Reproducing it is easy
1) Attach object A (with RemoveObject() in AttachTargetLost()) to object B
2) Put object B inside object C
3) Remove object C with RemoveObject()

The removal of object C triggers the removal of object A. When the object is removed, apparently it loses its attach target (from my log history). Then it gets removed again, but its status is not 0 yet (I assume), so it can be removed twice.

Unrelated:
The engine calls AttachTargetLost by itself, but there are also a lot of objects (but not all) that additionally define AttachTargetLost as the AbortCall of an action with DFA_Attach (as in my case, which may be caused by the action going to idle when an object is removed).
Will try out what happens when I remove the abort call.

~0006255

Marky (developer)

2019-05-02 18:27

 "Duplicate" definition of AttachTargetLost as AbortCall in an action caused the problem.

This happens at 9 instances in Objects.ocd, and it is a problem in any AbortCall that removed the object (which is hard to find out?)...

~0006256

Marky (developer)

2019-05-02 19:47

 https://github.com/openclonk/openclonk/pull/108
+Notes

-Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
2018-12-11 13:02 Marky New Issue
2019-04-29 08:40 Foaly Note Added: 0006233
2019-04-29 22:11 Clonkonaut Note Added: 0006235
2019-04-30 06:31 Foaly Note Added: 0006240
2019-04-30 07:23 Clonkonaut Note Added: 0006241
2019-04-30 07:24 Clonkonaut Note Deleted: 0006241
2019-04-30 07:38 Clonkonaut Note Added: 0006242
2019-04-30 07:44 Foaly Note Added: 0006243
2019-04-30 08:25 Clonkonaut Note Added: 0006245
2019-04-30 09:16 Foaly Note Added: 0006246
2019-05-01 11:16 Marky Note Added: 0006248
2019-05-01 11:52 Marky Note Added: 0006249
2019-05-01 12:01 Marky Note Added: 0006250
2019-05-02 07:08 Foaly Note Added: 0006251
2019-05-02 16:45 Marky Note Added: 0006252
2019-05-02 17:37 Marky Note Added: 0006253
2019-05-02 17:59 Marky Note Added: 0006254
2019-05-02 18:17 Marky Note Edited: 0006254 View Revisions
2019-05-02 18:17 Marky Note Edited: 0006254 View Revisions
2019-05-02 18:21 Marky Note Edited: 0006254 View Revisions
2019-05-02 18:27 Marky Note Added: 0006255
2019-05-02 18:58 Marky Assigned To => Marky
2019-05-02 18:58 Marky Status new => assigned
2019-05-02 19:47 Marky Note Added: 0006256
2019-06-23 18:27 Marky Status assigned => resolved
2019-06-23 18:27 Marky Resolution open => fixed
2019-06-23 18:27 Marky Fixed in Version => 9.0
+Issue History