6808a082eb
## About The Previous Pull Request
#85308 reverted by #85929
~~Causes the round to not start when a player isn't eligible for any
jobs at a specific priority level due to runtimes trying to `pick()`
from an empty list aborting the entire job assignment stack.~~
(Fixed???? by
e0e9f2f430)
Maybe we should test merge this for a mo just to make sure no more
cheeky runtimes pop up before merging.
## About The Pull Request
This PR does a couple of minor things:
Makes the job debug logging a bit easier to follow.
Minorly brings some SSjob code up to code standards, converting proc
names to snake_case and doing some otherm is cleanup.
Refactored some stuff into different procs, updated some comments.
And some major things:
Changes the job assignment logic.
Old behaviour
> Assign dynamic priority roles
> Force one Head of Staff (if possible)
> Assign all AIs
> Assign overflow roles (bugged in 2 ways)
> Shuffle the available jobs list once, at the start of the random job
assignment loop
> Pick and assign random jobs for random players from High prefs down,
with a priority on Head of Staff roles
> Handle everyone that couldn't be assigned a random job
New behaviour
> Assign dynamic priority roles
> Assign all Head of Staff roles to players with High prefs
> If no Head of Staff was made in the above way, force one Head of Staff
(if possible)
> Assign all AIs
> Assign overflow roles (fixed)
> Prioritise and fill unfilled head roles at each job priority pref
level, from High prefs down.
> Build a list of all jobs that each unassigned player could be eligible
for at the above pref level.
> Pick a job from that list at random and assign it to the player.
> Handle everyone that couldn't be assigned a random job.
In reality there should be little impact on overall job assignment, the
code changes read more as semantics. For example, the priority check for
filling Head slots will have the same candidate pool in both old and new
versions, but in the new version we're more clearly saying that Heads
are important and we want to prioritise filling them for the sake of
round progression even though the outcome in new and old is the same.
A key change will lead to an increase in assistants - Overflow fixes.
Currently the code block to do early assignments to the Overflow role
doesn't work - or works but not as you'd expect. The idea was is that
because enabling the Overflow role in the prefs menu is an On/Off toggle
that sets the job to High priority when enabled and prevents any other
High priority pref, players that have the Overflow role enabled will
**always** get it. It's their highest priority job with infinite slots.
So we do a pass right at the start to give everyone with the Overflow
role enabled that role and save us wasting time later on in random job
code giving them that same role but with more work.
The problem is the code for this only assigns the Overflow role to
people with it set to Low priority in their prefs, resulting in log
readouts like:
```
[2024-07-27 09:49:43.469] DEBUG-JOB: DO, Running Overflow Check 1
[2024-07-27 09:49:43.469] DEBUG-JOB: Running FOC, Job: /datum/job/assistant, Level: Low Priority
[2024-07-27 09:49:43.472] DEBUG-JOB: FOC player job enabled at wrong level, Player: Radioprague, TheirLevel: Medium Priority, ReqLevel: Low Priority
[2024-07-27 09:49:43.472] DEBUG-JOB: FOC player job enabled at wrong level, Player: Caluan, TheirLevel: High Priority, ReqLevel: Low Priority
[2024-07-27 09:49:43.473] DEBUG-JOB: FOC player job enabled at wrong level, Player: Caractaser, TheirLevel: High Priority, ReqLevel: Low Priority
[2024-07-27 09:49:43.473] DEBUG-JOB: FOC player job enabled at wrong level, Player: Apsua, TheirLevel: High Priority, ReqLevel: Low Priority
[2024-07-27 09:49:43.475] DEBUG-JOB: FOC player job enabled at wrong level, Player: Bebrus2, TheirLevel: Medium Priority, ReqLevel: Low Priority
[2024-07-27 09:49:43.475] DEBUG-JOB: AC1, Candidates: 0
```
Where nobody gets pre-assigned the overflow role because their prefs are
all set to the High priority from being toggled... Except wait a second,
some people have it at Medium priority when it should just be a No
Role/High Priority Role toggle?
And herein we meet a problem. My hypothesis is that traits and stuff
that change the overflow have allowed players to set the "ordinary"
overflow role of Assistant to Medium and/or Low priority.
This still shows as enabled in the prefs menu, but leads to an outcome
where a player with assistant enabled is assigned Cook instead.
```
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.775] DEBUG-JOB: DO, Running Overflow Check 1
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.775] DEBUG-JOB: Running FOC, Job: /datum/job/assistant, Level: Low Priority
...
[2024-07-27 09:49:43.475] DEBUG-JOB: FOC player job enabled at wrong level, Player: Bebrus2, TheirLevel: Medium Priority, ReqLevel: Low Priority
...
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.987] DEBUG-JOB: Running AR, Player: Bebrus2, Job: /datum/job/cook, LateJoin: 0
```
So players with the Overflow job pref set to Low (an unexpected state,
should be disabled or High) would be guaranteed to get that role if none
of the higher priority Head of Staff/AI/Dynamic roles took over via the
bugged "force overflow for people with the pref enabled" proc.
Players with the Overflow job pref set to High would be guaranteed to
get that role if none of the higher priority Head of Staff/AI/Dynamic
roles took over via the random job assignment code giving them their
Highest priority role thanks to the infinite job slots of the Overflow.
And players with the Overflow job pref set to Medium (an unexpected
state, should be disabled or High) would get Assistant if the shuffle
step of the available jobs list put Assisstant before any of the other
jobs they had prefs enabled for at Medium that weren't already filled,
otherwise they'd get another random job.
This code is now changed to ignore the priority the player has set when
looking for people to fill the overflow role. As long as it **is**
enabled, the player will get it unless they're forced into a dynamic
ruleset role (AI when malf rolls) or a Head of Staff role due to their
other prefs (they have RD set to med or low, and no other player has a
Head of Staff at high so they get randomly picked and miss the overflow
role).
This will increase the number of assistants in shifts where their pref
state has Assisstant in the bugged Medium priority, but doesn't change
it for bugged Low and not-bugged High/On priority.
On the other side of the coin, we have how the random jobs are picked.
They're kinda not random, and I noticed this reading the logs then
reading the code.
The list of available jobs to pick from is randomly shuffled - but only
**once**. All players pull from a list of jobs in the same order. So you
end up with a log block like this:
```
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.985] DEBUG-JOB: DO pass, Player: Pierow, Level:3, Job:Botanist
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.985] DEBUG-JOB: Running AR, Player: Pierow, Job: /datum/job/botanist, LateJoin: 0
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.985] DEBUG-JOB: Player: Pierow is now Rank: Botanist, JCP:0, JPL:2
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.986] DEBUG-JOB: DO pass, Player: Daddos, Level:3, Job:Botanist
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.986] DEBUG-JOB: Running AR, Player: Daddos, Job: /datum/job/botanist, LateJoin: 0
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.986] DEBUG-JOB: Player: Daddos is now Rank: Botanist, JCP:1, JPL:2
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.986] DEBUG-JOB: FOC job filled and not overflow, Player: Bebrus2, Job: /datum/job/botanist, Current: 2, Limit: 2
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.987] DEBUG-JOB: FOC player job not enabled, Player: Bebrus2
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.987] DEBUG-JOB: DO pass, Player: Bebrus2, Level:3, Job:Cook
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.987] DEBUG-JOB: Running AR, Player: Bebrus2, Job: /datum/job/cook, LateJoin: 0
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.988] DEBUG-JOB: Player: Bebrus2 is now Rank: Cook, JCP:0, JPL:1
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.988] DEBUG-JOB: FOC player job not enabled, Player: Redwizz
[2024-07-27 09:49:47.988] DEBUG-JOB: FOC job filled and not overflow, Player: Redwizz, Job: /datum/job/cook, Current: 1, Limit: 1
```
The list is shuffled into an order of something like `list("Scientist",
"Botanist", "Cook", "Sec Officer", ...)` then iterated over for each
player. So every random job selection goes:
> "Does Player1 have Scientist enabled and at the right priority? No?
Okay, Botanist? Yes? You get botanist."
> "Does Player2 have Scientist enabled and at the right priority? No?
Okay, Botanist? Yes? You get botanist."
> "Does Player3 have Scientist enabled and at the right priority? No?
Okay, Botanist has no slots left so we'll remove it from the list. Okay,
Cook? Yes? You get cook."
> "Does Player4 have Scientist enabled and at the right priority? No?
Okay, Cook has no slots left so we'll remove it from the list. Okay, Sec
Officer? ..."
This can lead to stacked individual departments if it gets randomly
rolled to the start of the list in the shuffle, and completely empty
departments if they end up at the end.
On high pop shifts this is probably less of an issue. Player prefs add
noise to this and as departments at the front fill up, those at the back
pick up some of the lower pref players.
But have you ever had a shift where there's just like... No fucking sec
even though there's tons of players? The logging (before I made changes
in this PR) was a bit ass, but my hypothesis there is that sec officer
was shuffled right at the end of the random job list, so every other
department was filled up before sec officers were picked.
To mitigate this, I made the list shuffle every single time the game
picks a random available job for the player. This should lead to a more
balanced selection of available jobs by avoiding situations where the
code is biased towards packing some departments by accident.
## Why It's Good For The Game
Overflow fixes mean people who go to their prefs and see the Overflow
Role is On will all have the same experience - They will be the Overflow
role.
More random random job selection should prevent individual departments
having a jobs be stacked when it would have otherwise been possible for
a more balanced selection but the code unintentially biased random
departments to be overstaffed and understaffed each shift.
## Changelog
🆑
fix: Having the Overflow Role set to On will properly ensure you get
that role at a High priority as intended by the game code.
fix: Job selection is now a little bit more random. Fixes an
unintentional bias in random job assignment that could lead to
feast-or-famine for roles where everyone is assigned one job and nobody
is assigned another job.
/🆑
Unit Tests
What is unit testing?
Unit tests are automated code to verify that parts of the game work exactly as they should. For example, a test to make sure that the amputation surgery actually amputates the limb. These are ran every time a PR is made, and thus are very helpful for preventing bugs from cropping up in your code that would've otherwise gone unnoticed. For example, would you have thought to check that beach boys would still work the same after editing pizza? If you value your time, probably not.
On their most basic level, when UNIT_TESTS is defined, all subtypes of /datum/unit_test will have their Run proc executed. From here, if Fail is called at any point, then the tests will report as failed.
How do I write one?
- Find a relevant file.
All unit test related code is in code/modules/unit_tests. If you are adding a new test for a surgery, for example, then you'd open surgeries.dm. If a relevant file does not exist, simply create one in this folder, then #include it in _unit_tests.dm.
- Create the unit test.
To make a new unit test, you simply need to define a /datum/unit_test.
For example, let's suppose that we are creating a test to make sure a proc square correctly raises inputs to the power of two. We'd start with first:
/datum/unit_test/square/Run()
This defines our new unit test, /datum/unit_test/square. Inside this function, we're then going to run through whatever we want to check. Tests provide a few assertion functions to make this easy. For now, we're going to use TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL.
/datum/unit_test/square/Run()
TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(square(3), 9, "square(3) did not return 9")
TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(square(4), 16, "square(4) did not return 16")
As you can hopefully tell, we're simply checking if the output of square matches the output we are expecting. If the test fails, it'll report the error message given as well as whatever the actual output was.
- Run the unit test
Open code/_compile_options.dm and uncomment the following line.
//#define UNIT_TESTS //If this is uncommented, we do a single run though of the game setup and tear down process with unit tests in between
Then, run tgstation.dmb in Dream Daemon. Don't bother trying to connect, you won't need to. You'll be able to see the outputs of all the tests. You'll get to see which tests failed and for what reason. If they all pass, you're set!
How to think about tests
Unit tests exist to prevent bugs that would happen in a real game. Thus, they should attempt to emulate the game world wherever possible. For example, the quick swap sanity test emulates a real scenario of the bug it fixed occurring by creating a character and giving it real items. The unrecommended alternative would be to create special test-only items. This isn't a hard rule, the reagent method exposure tests create a test-only reagent for example, but do keep it in mind.
Unit tests should also be just that--testing units of code. For example, instead of having one massive test for reagents, there are instead several smaller tests for testing exposure, metabolization, etc.
The unit testing API
You can find more information about all of these from their respective doc comments, but for a brief overview:
/datum/unit_test - The base for all tests to be ran. Subtypes must override Run(). New() and Destroy() can be used for setup and teardown. To fail, use TEST_FAIL(reason).
/datum/unit_test/proc/allocate(type, ...) - Allocates an instance of the provided type with the given arguments. Is automatically destroyed when the test is over. Commonly seen in the form of var/mob/living/carbon/human/human = allocate(/mob/living/carbon/human/consistent).
TEST_FAIL(reason) - Marks a failure at this location, but does not stop the test.
TEST_ASSERT(assertion, reason) - Stops the unit test and fails if the assertion is not met. For example: TEST_ASSERT(powered(), "Machine is not powered").
TEST_ASSERT_NOTNULL(a, message) - Same as TEST_ASSERT, but checks if !isnull(a). For example: TEST_ASSERT_NOTNULL(myatom, "My atom was never set!").
TEST_ASSERT_NULL(a, message) - Same as TEST_ASSERT, but checks if isnull(a). If not, gives a helpful message showing what a was. For example: TEST_ASSERT_NULL(delme, "Delme was never cleaned up!").
TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(a, b, message) - Same as TEST_ASSERT, but checks if a == b. If not, gives a helpful message showing what both a and b were. For example: TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(2 + 2, 4, "The universe is falling apart before our eyes!").
TEST_ASSERT_NOTEQUAL(a, b, message) - Same as TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL, but reversed.
TEST_FOCUS(test_path) - Only run the test provided within the parameters. Useful for reducing noise. For example, if we only want to run our example square test, we can add TEST_FOCUS(/datum/unit_test/square). Should never be pushed in a pull request--you will be laughed at.
Final Notes
- Writing tests before you attempt to fix the bug can actually speed up development a lot! It means you don't have to go in game and folllow the same exact steps manually every time. This process is known as "TDD" (test driven development). Write the test first, make sure it fails, then start work on the fix/feature, and you'll know you're done when your tests pass. If you do try this, do make sure to confirm in a non-testing environment just to double check.
- Make sure that your tests don't accidentally call RNG functions like
prob. Since RNG is seeded during tests, you may not realize you have until someone else makes a PR and the tests fail! - Do your best not to change the behavior of non-testing code during tests. While it may sometimes be necessary in the case of situations such as the above, it is still a slippery slope that can lead to the code you're testing being too different from the production environment to be useful.