This bug never made it into production I think, it was a consequence of
some of how I refactored stuff in the recent changes? I think??
But yeah, I refactor how we manage `SwfAsset#body_id`, to be a bit more
explicit about when and how it can change, instead of the weird
callbacks that tbqh have bit us too often…
Ah right, the callbacks in `ParentSwfAssetRelationship` don't get
called when Rails does automatic join-model management stuff. We need
the `Item` to call its `update_cached_fields` callback itself, too!
When fixing this, I found a new bug that arose, in how we infer
`body_id` for assets that fit all pets. Fixing that next!
Hmm, I think I made a mistake on `modeling_snapshot.rb:69`: I'm
assigning the *entire* `item.swf_assets` relation to *just* the assets
for the new model of it, which breaks all the other connections.
First, I'm disabling modeling. Then, I'll restore a backup. Then, I'll
write tests for that case, and fix it up!
The NC Pet Styles sentence getting broken across two lines I think
makes it too hard to notice.
Design-wise, it would be nice to just call better attention to this
feature altogether in some higher-level design-language-y way, but!
Whatever!
If you check this box, it'll keep you in a mode where saving an alt
style redirects you to the *next* one that needs labeling, until
they're all done. Useful for big drops!
Catch missing fields in validation before sending it to the DB, and
skip the Dyeworks stuff if the name is missing.
I ran into this looking into `test/trade_activity_test.rb`, which fails
right now because we try to create a boring placeholder item with
minimal fields, which Dyeworks can't call `name.match()` on!
Now, the test fails with a more helpful error about the item being
invalid. Next, I'll fix that!
Just getting this stuff out of Pet, in part because I want to start
being able to unit test modeling, and that will require stubbing out
what this service returns!
Just a bit more clarity of grouping! I'm also thinking about extracting
modeling APIs into a service file like this too, in which case I think
this would help clarify what it is.
They're not all Nostalgic anymore! Oh, how the times have changed!
This way, new ones will appear as "<New?>", until support staff come in
and label them (with our cool new tools!)
Whoops, I didn't realize this change I made to validation for the alt
style editing form, was goofing up alt style modeling!
The trick is, the validation was happening before the `before_create`
hook. Now I've reformulated these as `before_validation` hooks, so
we're not rejecting new alt styles for having no thumbnail!
Oh huh, I guess most of the new items we had when I rewrote this were
Maraquan, and I didn't test enough on standard species-specific items.
Before this change, partially-modeled items for standard pets would
appear as fully modeled, because the presence of the "nonstandard"
color Orange (because of the Orange Chia) meant that the "standard" key
didn't actually have any unique bodies (it was all `["standard", 47]`).
Here, I take my own comments' advice and move away from the standard
label as part of the logic. Instead, we look first for nonstandard
colors with unique bodies, which we'll call out as modelable; and then
check whether there are any basic bodies *not* covered by those special
colors.
That way, compatibility with the Maraquan Acara (a unique body) means
we'll treat Maraquan as a modelable color; and then we'll ignore the
basic bodies, even though it *does* fit the basic Mynci, because there
aren't any compatible basic bodies that aren't *also* Maraquan bodies.
This also means that compatibility with both the Blue Acara and Orange
Acara does *not* preclude a normal item from needing basic pets for
models: because, while Orange is a slightly nonstandard color in the
case of Chia, it doesn't have its own unique body for this item, so we
ignore it when predicting compatibility with basic colors.
