Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.04.23

Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.04.23

Archive of lobby developer discussions

Moderators: Moderators, Lobby Developers

Post Reply
User avatar
Lobby Developer
Posts: 1059
Joined: 14 Aug 2007, 16:15

Lobby :: Dev meeting minutes 2012.04.23

Post by koshi »

Lobby Dev Meeting 2012-04-23 20:54:16.873488

  1. minutes
  3. new drafts
  4. remaining undocumented uberserver commands
  5. server development/documentation / what was done this week
  • bibim_
  • danil_kalina
  • aegis
  • [ARP]hoijui_irc
  • _koshi_

Agenda Item 1:minutes -------------------------
_koshi_: welcome everyone
_koshi_: I'm volunteering again, since i'm not quite done with the auto script thingies

Agenda Item 2:SAYBATTLEPRIVATE & SAYBATTLEPRIVATEEX -------------------------
_koshi_: aegis and or licho wanted to prepare a draft for that
[ARP]hoijui_irc: does anyone know where licho is?
_koshi_: nope
[ARP]hoijui_irc: ok
[ARP]hoijui_irc: aegis seems to be away
_koshi_: i'm guessing the draft didn't happen again, so we can table this point
[ARP]hoijui_irc: i agree

Agenda Item 3:new drafts -------------------------
_koshi_: EXIT https://github.com/spring/LobbyProtocol/compare/exit
_koshi_: and
_koshi_: GETINGAMETIME https://github.com/spring/LobbyProtocol ... ingametime
_koshi_: i somewhat doubt they're worth discussing unless my wording is off/wrong?
bibim_: hum, uberserver accepts a parameter for EXIT command (exit reason)
[ARP]hoijui_irc: "before severing the connection to indicate a clean and deliberate disconnect" maybe use a more common people word then severing, but that is very minor
[ARP]hoijui_irc: and yeah.. i guess an optional reason arg makes sense
_koshi_: sentence?
_koshi_: i mean should it be a sentence arg?
[ARP]hoijui_irc: ahh yeah, i woudl say so
_koshi_: alright, i'll change that
[ARP]hoijui_irc: ook :-)
_koshi_: anything else?
[ARP]hoijui_irc: looks good to me otherwise
bibim_: yeah seems ok
danil_kalina: +
_koshi_: alright, next

Agenda Item 4:remaining undocumented uberserver commands -------------------------
_koshi_: since aegis and licho both aren't really here, i guess we'll skip the openbattleex stuff again
[ARP]hoijui_irc: yeahh!
_koshi_: unless one of you guys researched that?
aegis: I'm here now.
danil_kalina: :D
[ARP]hoijui_irc: hey
danil_kalina: I don't remember exactly, but there is only two new parameters
danil_kalina: like name of the engine
aegis: engine, version
danil_kalina: and it's version
aegis: right before the sentence args
danil_kalina: to activate them you should add exstensional parameter when connect
aegis: if engine = spring, version = current_version or current_version.0, it will still send normal BATTLEOPENED command to regular clients
danil_kalina: that was done so many times ago :D
danil_kalina: ~ a month ?
_koshi_: what was done?
danil_kalina: supporting that
_koshi_: nope
_koshi_: not at all
danil_kalina: in a lobby
danil_kalina: we have done
[ARP]hoijui_irc: is there a protocol proposal for it?
_koshi_: nope
[ARP]hoijui_irc: k
_koshi_: not that i'm aware
[ARP]hoijui_irc: so it was not done
_koshi_: correct
_koshi_: other than that mapping to plain BATTLEOPENED, you're doing no logic server site, aegis?
danil_kalina: this was done for games which are not ready for new spring version
_koshi_: can you draft the protocol extension then, danil_kalina/aegis?
danil_kalina: we ignore the version of spring which server send. just check the version in battleroom
danil_kalina: aegis, where are you ? :D
[ARP]hoijui_irc: yeah yeah, i get it..
[ARP]hoijui_irc: "me russian, me noo good english, me no can write protocol proposal!"
[ARP]hoijui_irc: lazy bastards!
[ARP]hoijui_irc: ;-)
aegis: still here
[ARP]hoijui_irc: aehm.. was not meant to be serious
aegis: logic is almost identical to BATTLEOPENED
danil_kalina: :(
aegis: we should discuss what to do with *different* version battles
_koshi_: like what? the clinet would either list them for its user or not
danil_kalina: give me a link to etherpad
danil_kalina: I will show you protocol
danil_kalina: too much text
_koshi_: http://etherpad.springrts.com/
danil_kalina: :)
danil_kalina: thanks
danil_kalina: http://etherpad.springrts.com/iKcJFfNpXH
aegis: _koshi_: backwards compat for clients who don't implement extended battles
aegis: licho's original stance was "the lobby should see the battle so they know they're missing something" if it's for a different engine/version
aegis: I can show them the battle with modified description and give them a descriptive error on join, I can hide the battle...
[ARP]hoijui_irc: danil... (why did you use C comments in XML syntax?) you just added two arguments?
[ARP]hoijui_irc: we need a description
[ARP]hoijui_irc: so that someone that never attended the meeting or read any lobby client or server code knows how to implement his client/server
_koshi_: if the client doesn't support versioned battle via new protocol it's of no use to present them to it
_koshi_: "so they know they're missing something" is of no value if i need to implement additional logic to filter those
[ARP]hoijui_irc: also.. seeing a battle you cant join and fail to join wiht no explanation.. is very bad
_koshi_: exactly
[ARP]hoijui_irc: 1% of users will ask in main why is that, rest will just hate us
[ARP]hoijui_irc: also.. this was kind of a method of pressure of licho agaisnt SL, which now does not make sense anymnore
danil_kalina: need to implement auto spring download
[ARP]hoijui_irc: since we have this meeting and protocol changes and agreements and so on
danil_kalina: new Game version - we have, new Map - we have
danil_kalina: new Spring Engine - no
[ARP]hoijui_irc: ? is that related to the topic?
aegis: _koshi_: if you're implementing logic, you can implement the new command
danil_kalina: yes
_koshi_: exactly aegis
danil_kalina: why do we need different versions of Spring ?! for different games which can not be updated so fast like Spring Engines issued
[ARP]hoijui_irc: isnt logic a more abstract word for implementation in code, in this scenario? .. i don;t get it
aegis: I'll make sure default behavior is to hide then
_koshi_: yes please
aegis: danil_kalina: or for testing new version reliably
[ARP]hoijui_irc: thanks :-)
aegis: because hashes change by version
aegis: and sync changes
danil_kalina: it is obvious
danil_kalina: why do we need that discussion)
_koshi_: alright, so flesh out the protocol extension draft for next meeting accordingly
[ARP]hoijui_irc: i guess the main goal of this topic on the agenda is to ask for a proposal
_koshi_: yes, then we should be good to vote on that, potentially after hearing licho's input in the meantime
danil_kalina: you ask about the relation to the topic
_koshi_: agreed?
danil_kalina: of course they do ))
aegis: voting on what exactly?
[ARP]hoijui_irc: not now
[ARP]hoijui_irc: voting when hte xml protocol description of the commadn is done
aegis: k
_koshi_: right, that's what i meant to say
[ARP]hoijui_irc: mianly that is.. a good textual description, i think
[ARP]hoijui_irc: (what is missing)
_koshi_: next subitem: are there any more not yet documented commands in uberserver/springLs?
aegis: admin commands
danil_kalina: don't know any
danil_kalina: aha
aegis: most were never in the standard doc
aegis: because they can be sent by hand and respond in human-readable form
[ARP]hoijui_irc: you mean.. they were in TASServer too?
_koshi_: it's prolly debatable if we want to standardize them?
_koshi_: example maybe?
[ARP]hoijui_irc: i guess documenting them is good anyway, maybe we can mark them as optional or something
aegis: hoijui, most of my admin commands were copied from tasserver
aegis: afaik I implement all useful commands from tasserver
[ARP]hoijui_irc: ok :-)
aegis: so when the transition happened admins could keep using the same command
aegis: only disabled forgemsg / forgereversemsg due to abuse potential
danil_kalina: The compat flag set on Login is "eb"[br][br]BATTLEOPENEDEX[br]Two new arguments[br]Between map hash and map name there are 2 new parameters:[br][br]- engine name[br]- engine version[br][br](for example "spring" and "88.0")[br][br][br]OPENBATTLEEX also has those parameters for battles you host
_koshi_: so do you think it's worth adding those since they prolly haven't diverged at all, yes?
[ARP]hoijui_irc: how else would admins know about them?
_koshi_: does the xml have a way to "tag"/express admin only commands already?
[ARP]hoijui_irc: or lobby devs that want to implement an admin panel or soemthing
aegis: extra behavior: server will hide battles with different engine/version if you don't send that compat flag, and server will *only* send you BATTLEOPENEDEX if you specify the flag
[ARP]hoijui_irc: no, does not have that
aegis: admins have internal docs
_koshi_: that would be a good additon then imo
[ARP]hoijui_irc: mm ok
_koshi_: so we can display/transofrm that into a sep section
_koshi_: in html output
[ARP]hoijui_irc: yeah, would be good additial.. to the new XSD stylesheet :D
aegis: imo worst place to find out about admin commands for admins would be an xml doc of the whole server somewhere :P
aegis: because admins/mods != lobby devs
[ARP]hoijui_irc: if it was a tag, you can just show these
aegis: but admin panel isn't bad thing.
aegis: iirc tasserver implemented some admin operations directly
[ARP]hoijui_irc: and as it is on git, and we have a site that auuto generates html form latest protocol version alreayd.. it woudl be easy ot add an other HTML doc with only admin command
[ARP]hoijui_irc: s
aegis: in context menu
[ARP]hoijui_irc: mmm ok
aegis: as well as springlobby?
_koshi_: stuff thru chanserv only, if memory servers
_koshi_: serves*
_koshi_: no idea what's "proper" wrt xml "tag" though
[ARP]hoijui_irc: sheep once said he would look into XSD
[ARP]hoijui_irc: though we dont need that for this one
[ARP]hoijui_irc: hmm yeha.. could be soemthing like an attribute for the command itssels
[ARP]hoijui_irc: its self
[ARP]hoijui_irc: eg <Command Admin="true">
[ARP]hoijui_irc: or something like:
_koshi_: and no attribute present --> false
_koshi_: or would one want to transform all already present commands?
[ARP]hoijui_irc: <Command><Tags><Tag>Admin</Tag>...
[ARP]hoijui_irc: dont know what you mean. koshi
_koshi_: if we introduce a new attribute
[ARP]hoijui_irc: we would have two docs with transform info
_koshi_: would we need to add that attribute to all commands?
[ARP]hoijui_irc: ahh no
[ARP]hoijui_irc: can have default one
_koshi_: damn lag, brb
_koshi_: back
_koshi_: i can't decide for or against either method tbh
[ARP]hoijui_irc: second method is more flexible
[ARP]hoijui_irc: i like it more
[ARP]hoijui_irc: and the additional chars it costs should not matter too muhc, as there are few admin commands
[ARP]hoijui_irc: and as soon as we get an other tag, this method is better already
[ARP]hoijui_irc: hmm.. ok .. i odn't know
[ARP]hoijui_irc: don't care muhc
bibim_: +1 I guess...
danil_kalina: right
_koshi_: please use the command so its recorded
danil_kalina: abstain
_koshi_: vote 0 then danil_kalina
Vote: add optional <TAGS> to commands
Result 4
  • bibim_: 1
  • danil_kalina: 0
  • aegis: 1
  • [ARP]hoijui_irc: 1
  • _koshi_: 1
_koshi_: alright, anything else for this item/topic?
danil_kalina: sleeping timr
_koshi_: gn
danil_kalina: cya

Agenda Item 5:server development/documentation / what was done this week -------------------------
_koshi_: any progress wrt forcejoin aegis? that was a topic last meeting
aegis: basically have two fulltime jobs right now, been hard to find time without scheduling and I haven't scheduled :P
aegis: is forcejoin the only one I need to implement in main server atm? have the email commands been finalized?
aegis: I'll set a reminder for tonight
_koshi_: the email stuff is finalized, but no one has begun implementing anything afaic
aegis: k, that'll be second priority
_koshi_: forcejoin is ready on SL side and licho will prolly have little diff. to change from his !join hack
[ARP]hoijui_irc: i have begann to implement email stuff
[ARP]hoijui_irc: but it is not working/testable yet
_koshi_: alright
_koshi_: anything else to note for this topic or are we done for today?
[ARP]hoijui_irc: me done for today

  • EXIT gets an additional sentence param
  • danil_kalina will flesh out a draft for OPENBATTLEEX,BATTLEOPENEDEX to be voted on next meeting
  • Commands in protocol docs get an extensible <TAGS> element where necessary to document admin-only commands
  • due to aegis' sever time restrictions no progress in uberser wrt new commands yet, hoijui has already started on the email stuff in SpringLS
Post Reply

Return to “Lobby Meeting Minutes”