I narrowed down the problem to the fact that we were joining in pet types against assets, and *then* running GROUP and DISTINCT and everything. Assets x compatible species/color pairs is a LOT of rows!
Here, we instead get all the relevant body IDs first, and *then* match them against pet types—which we fetch in one batch to match body to canonical species/color.
I'm also trashing the weird caching mechanism we did here, because in practice it doesn't seem reliable anyway. If anything, I'd want to look at stronger CDN caching. (I made a small improvement to the caching annotation, but ultimately it still doesn't matter, because this query uses logged-in stuff and always comes out max-age=0 anyway.)
This helps with items like "Living in Watermelon Foreground and Background", which has a species-specific foreground and bodyId=0 background.
With this flag set on the background, it won't appear for pets that don't _also_ have something else that fits. In this case, it hides it from Standard Vandas, and all non-standard colors.
There's some hacky limitations here: the item page still highlights the Vanda, even though clicking gives nothing; and the zone info for it is messy too, with the Background claiming to fit all species, and the LFI claiming to fit 54 specific species. But those don't seem important enough to code for!
The other day, I deleted what was apparently a load-bearing glitch row, lol 😂
We had a row in pet_types that somehow had `body_id = 0`. And I guess that was causing this query to return some species, even though that body has no species.
Here, I'm adding support for the special `representsAllBodies` body's species to be null. The client seems chill with it, we weren't using that property in that situation anyway!
I like making these more concise and consistent across the dropdown and the cards, I'm still not 100% sold on the design but it seems ok for now!
At first I had it in the dropdown as "Background (3)", but realized that conflicts with the usual pattern of like, saying how many items match a certain filter…
Using this to get an at-a-glance check on how Neopets IDs are typically assigned for body-specific items… looks like it's increasing, and alphabetical by species? (not by species ID?)
I think this will be generally useful to minimize switching around for common operations, but also I'm thinking of building a bulk assign tool for things with broken body IDs, and this will be the place for it to live, I think
Oops, we weren't doing a good job encapsulating the different conditions in item search. The `OR` in the NC condition was causing a precedence problem!
Now, we wrap all the conditions in parens at the interpolation site, to make it really clear that they all need to be made safe like that!
Now, there's not a bunch of "??????" entries in NC search, oops 😅
Oops, the HTML5Badge was using the presence of an `svgUrl` to decide if the item is converted!
Here, we add an extra condition that if the OFFICIAL_SVG_IS_INCORRECT glitch is applied, then *that* indicates HTML5 conversion, too.
New items have ?v= in the query string, which denied requesting them from the outfit thumbnail API route. Now, we allow any query string.
Also, I started allowing PNGs. I don't think any should actually come through here in practice? But it seems safe and forward-looking.
This was one more bit that needed fixing for "Flying in an Airplane": it wasn't just the official SVG that was incorrect, but also the official SWF. So our converted PNG was also incorrect!
Here, we now try to use the official Neopets PNG when the manifest provides it, instead of our own.
Inspired by the "Flying in an Airplane" bug (item 82287), where the official SVG (and I think SWF) were visually glitched and included both zones in the image, but the official PNG was correct.
This flag lets us use the PNG, like the official player does—but only for this item, while still keeping SVGs for everyone else!
I already had a script for this lying around, and adapted it a tiny bit to the repository!
Part of me thought about building it in as a support tool. I might've if:
- this CLI didn't already exist
- we already had tighter permissioning, this is pretty high stakes!!
