I'm running into this with the automated tests and the fixtures I think
sometimes using large auto-generated IDs?
But the point is, our tables generally use Rails's default `:integer`
size for its IDs, and then columns that reference them are *smaller*,
which is… not correct stuff, y'know?
So I figure, let's just expand the columns. We don't have enough data
that being real picky about the integer sizes matters, so let's keep it
simple and more obviously correct.
Oh huh, when doing Rainbow Pool stuff, I put the ordering in the wrong
place! It's a sensible ordering for the Rainbow Pool page, but not so
much for the JSON view!
This is currently crashing the Rainbow Pool when the Anniversary Techo
would appear, because the asset seems to be missing? The SWF doesn't
seem to exist, nor does its manifest.
Oh right, yeah, we like to do things gracefully around here when
there's no corresponding color/species record yet!
Paying more attention to this, I'm thinking like… it could be a cool
idea to, in modeling, *create* the new color/species record, and just
not have all the attributes filled in yet? Especially now that we're
less dependent on attributes like `standard` to be set for correct
functioning.
But for now, we follow the same strategy we do elsewhere in the app: a
pet type can have `color_id` and `species_id` that don't correspond to
a real record, and we cover over that smoothly.
Oh dang, we're on color #120 now, and looks like our maximum value is
127. Let's expand that!
I noticed this because I'm writing tests for some stuff, and used "456"
as a placeholder ID number, and it just fully did not work, and I'm
like. Oh.
Huh, I guess when I reapplied my refactors to modeling disabling the
other day, I didn't notice that I turned it off in production. And I
guess I didn't deploy this at the time cuz it's just refactors, but
when I deployed other changes yesterday this came with it. Whoops!
I only now thought through that I can scrape these instead of enter
them manually, similar to how we did our Rainbow Pool scraper… hooray!
I'm actually writing tests for stuff too, wowie!
This change was modified a bit after cherry-picking, to no longer
include the broken changes to item modeling in 9eaee4a.
(cherry picked from commit 90407403ba)
Okay so, when we reverted a buncha stuff in e3d196f, it was in response
to a bug where item modeling data was getting deleted. And I was tired,
and just took a big simple hammer to it of reverting all the modeling
refactors.
Here, we reintroduce *some* of them: the biology ones before the item
bug. And tests still pass, and in fact I can un-pending some of them!
I might also try to reapply the change where we extract it all into a
new file, but without the item parts.
```shell
git cherry-pick --no-commit 13ceec8fcc
git cherry-pick --no-commit f81415d327
git cherry-pick --no-commit c03e7446e3
git cherry-pick --no-commit 52ca41dbff
```
Also, while we're here! To restore the lost data, I:
1. Downloaded this scheduled public data backup, which was taken
thankfully the day before we updated modeling code!
https://impress.openneo.net/public-data/2024-11-03T08_15_02Z-scheduled.sql.gz
2. Trimmed it just to the section about the `parents_swf_assets` table:
dropping it, then rebuilding it from scratch.
3. Ran this modified backup SQL dump on the production server.
4. Ran the code from `db/migrate/20241001052510_add_cached_fields_to_items.rb`
to bring items' cached fields back into the correct state.
I also had to fix some errors in the item data that prevented some
items from passing the latest validations:
```rb
Item.where(rarity: "").update_all(rarity: "???")
Item.where(description: "").update_all(description: "???")
Item.where(zones_restrict: "").update_all(zones_restrict: "00000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000")
```
Because we ended up with such a big error, and it doesn't have an easy
fix, I'm wrapping up today by reverting the entire set of refactors
we've done lately, so modeling in production can continue while we
improve this code further over time.
I generated this commit by hand-picking the refactor-y commits
recently, running `git revert --no-commit <hash>` in reverse order,
then manually updating `pet_spec.rb` to reflect the state of the code:
passing the most important behavioral tests, but no longer passing one
of the kinds of annoyances I *did* fix in the new code.
```shell
git revert --no-commit 48c1a58df9
git revert --no-commit 42e7eabdd8
git revert --no-commit d82c7f817a
git revert --no-commit 5264947608
git revert --no-commit 90407403ba
git revert --no-commit 242b85470d
git revert --no-commit 9eaee4a2d4
git revert --no-commit 52ca41dbff
git revert --no-commit c03e7446e3
git revert --no-commit f81415d327
git revert --no-commit 13ceec8fcc
```
As I'm writing out my solution for this, I'm almost wondering if it's
time for the refactor I've been Theoretically Planning Someday, to move
items to a real `ItemAppearance` model in the database similar to
`PetState`… Hmm hmm hmm…
For now though, I'm taking a break!
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!
This gives better output when they fail, and also avoids spurious
failures like when an array for `cached_compatible_body_ids` is replaced
by an identical one! (I'm running into this right now, and yeah, it
helps a lot lol)
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!
Not actually touching alt style yet, just the very basic stuff about
how alt style can cause loading to fail in certain extremely rare cases
(specifically, if it's our first time seeing the underlying
color/species combo too, which… isn't gonna happen irl on DTI for a long
time if ever, I would guess, but hey!)
That is, if everything is the same as before, we don't need to change
anything in our database!
I also learned a bit more about RSpec syntax sugars, it's cute!
