## About The Pull Request
As the title says, this excludes Kilo & Pubby from failing CI due to the
design being added while the tech node isn't, now it's only ran if the
map has it. This was an oversight of my original PR
https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/pull/94160
## Changelog
Nothing player-facing.
## About The Pull Request
I'm working on a pubby update for the map depot for admins to run, and
thought I should throw this here. Removes a varedit from Pubby and makes
the monastery telescreen replaceable by making it researchable and
printable through the service techfab.
Also re-adds the pubby map wall item, using the new map item outlines.
## Why It's Good For The Game
Repairability for a map that seems to be ran frequently by admins
(judging by it getting actual issue reports), this has no effect
otherwise.
## About The Pull Request
Adds a unit test that checks that all designs are accessible through
some source, be it techweb, disks, or innate designs. Certain designs,
like pocket extinguishers, entertainment screens, etc, that have been
present in autolathes but not in the techweb despite having PROTOLATHE
flag assigned have been put into protolathes (where it made sense,
otherwise the flag was removed).
An important change is that restaurant portals are now printable, and
thus can be constructed and deconstructed. Indestructible portals have
been a major gripe of mine for a while, and I don't see a solid reason
for keeping them indestructible if they can easily be printed from the
service protolathe.
Closes#90212
## Why It's Good For The Game
Initial argument for keeping portals unbreakable was to prevent people
from griefing the chef/bartender, but by that logic we can make most
machinery unbreakable too. I don't think that having an unbreakable
portal is good if its locking us out from allowing chefs/bartenders to
reorder or even outright reposition their lunchroom/bar.
## Changelog
🆑
balance: Restaurant portals can now be printed, constructed and
deconstructed. They're also no longer completely invulnerable.
/🆑
## About The Pull Request
Adds a unit test that checks that all designs are accessible through
some source, be it techweb, disks, or innate designs. Certain designs,
like pocket extinguishers, entertainment screens, etc, that have been
present in autolathes but not in the techweb despite having PROTOLATHE
flag assigned have been put into protolathes (where it made sense,
otherwise the flag was removed).
An important change is that restaurant portals are now printable, and
thus can be constructed and deconstructed. Indestructible portals have
been a major gripe of mine for a while, and I don't see a solid reason
for keeping them indestructible if they can easily be printed from the
service protolathe.
Closes#90212
## Why It's Good For The Game
Initial argument for keeping portals unbreakable was to prevent people
from griefing the chef/bartender, but by that logic we can make most
machinery unbreakable too. I don't think that having an unbreakable
portal is good if its locking us out from allowing chefs/bartenders to
reorder or even outright reposition their lunchroom/bar.
## Changelog
🆑
balance: Restaurant portals can now be printed, constructed and
deconstructed. They're also no longer completely invulnerable.
/🆑
## About The Pull Request
A long time ago, it was common for designs to cost reagents in addition
to normal materials. Every circuit board used to require sulfuric acid,
for example. However, these designs have slowly been whittled away, and
only two remain: the death syphon PKA modkit, which costs blood, and
paint remover in the service lathe, which costs acetone. Although these
two designs still use the old system, it is very outdated, and it shows.
TGUI doesn't take reagent costs into account at all. Reagent costs
aren't displayed on mouse over like material costs, and the design won't
be greyed out if there necessary reagents aren't present. If you try and
fail to print one of the two designs, the protolathe will tell you that
reagents are missing, but it won't say what reagents. In fact, there is
not way to find out what reagents are required without code diving.
## Why It's Good For The Game
In light of how outdated and unsupported this system is, I think it
makes sense to deprecate it almost entirely.* Now, protolathes, circuit
imprinters and techfabs will no longer take reagent costs into account
at all, even if a design does define reagent costs. The machines also no
longer need beakers to be built, and reagents can't be transferred into
them. The two remaining designs that did use reagent costs now don't,
and I've updated the designs unit test to fail if any non-limbgrower
design does set any reagent costs.
*Limb growers are the exception, as they're fully functional and work
fine.
## Changelog
🆑
del: Protolathe/circuit imprinter/techfab designs costing reagents is
now totally deprecated.
/🆑
## About The Pull Request
With the new crafting menu some reagents now have default container
assigned.
I applied these to visualize reagents in biogen UI too.
<img alt="060ybChTkI"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3625094/209483256-e4159a05-46ae-47b8-bc42-9d003cf6c303.png">
## Why It's Good For The Game
Better representation of a reagent.
## Changelog
🆑
qol: Biogenerator shows default reagent containers instead of beakers
/🆑
About The Pull Request
Separated compiling the integration tests and running them as separate steps for organization purposes.
Added a TEST_ASSERT_NULL(value, reason) and TEST_ASSERT_NOTNULL(value, reason) because those are conceptually simple tests.
Makes the PASS and FAIL prefixes in the integration test log be green and red for better readability.
Failure reasons now display the file and line number.
In order to achieve this, direct calls to Fail() are now wrapped in a macro, TEST_FAIL(), as Fail() itself needs preprocessor stuff passed to it.
In the midst of updating it, I noticed multiple cases of tests directly calling Fail() and returning when they should have used a better macro, so those were updated. There was at least one case where it appeared that the code assumed that the test ended at Fail(), but made no attempt to do so, such as with the RCD test.
Feel free to double check all of the changed unit tests in case I made a functional behavior change, but they currently pass.
To take advantage of the previous change, failures are now marked as annotations. Note that outside of github, this creates an ugly-looking line but the primary environment is as a github action.
Examples with intentionally botched unit test:
image
image
image
Why It's Good For The Game
Makes inspecting failed unit tests significantly easier.
Changelog
N/A
nevimer
