Finally getting around to this because, with Turbo in play, it applies
to subsequent *pages* too, oops! Previously we at least had the blast
radius of this known issue constrained to the item page itself lol :p
Got some questions in Discord about account unlinking, and seeing
people look ahead to other potential integrations. Want to clarify that
unlinking will work here (barring any surprises!), and that there's no
data sharing _just_ yet!
Someone requested this in Discord, and I figured why not! I'm still
planning to move stuff away from Impress 2020 over time, I just figure
may as well have them more linked while this is still The Reality
This doesn't really matter, I just didn't realize the `.html` part was
optional, and I guess I omitted it here without realizing? But let's
add it for consistency.
The modeling code is slow! I think in production it's being cached, and
tbh I though I had development mode caching turned on over here, but
it's quite evidently _not_ doing it if so, so. Okay! Skip for now.
Oh right, we don't have Rails UJS going on anymore, which is what
handled the confirmation prompts for deleting lists. Turbo is the more
standard modern solution to that, and should speed up certain
pageloads, so let's do it!
Here I install the `turbo-rails` gem, then run `rails turbo:install` to
install the `@hotwired/turbo-rails` npm package. Then I move
`application.js` that's run all on pages but the outfit editor into our
section of JS that gets run through the bundler, and add Turbo to it.
I had to fix a couple tricky things:
1. The outfit editor page doesn't play nice with being swapped into the
document, so I make it require a full page reload instead.
2. Prefetching the Sign In link can cause the wrong `return_to` address
to be written to the `session`. (It's a GET request that does, ever
so slightly, take its own actions, oops!) As a simple hacky answer,
we disallow prefetching on that link.
Haven't fixed up the UJS stuff for confirm prompts to use Turbo yet,
that's next!
This `.gif` format is used in the items list "export to petpage"
feature, as the image URL for items whose URLs are known to contain
blocked words that prevent them from being used in petpages.
But when doing some Rails upgrade long ago, we didn't notice the new
security feature that blocks redirects to other sites without a special
flag being set. It was triggering 500 errors, oops.
Now, we set the flag!
I think this is the more canonical place for stuff like this these days!
It's nice to be able to just say the short name when calling `render`.
Here's the answer I looked up about it: https://stackoverflow.com/a/9892081/107415
My immediate motivation is that I'm looking at creating more About
pages, and thinking about where to put them; I think maybe we trash the
`StaticController`, move these partials out to here, and move terms
into a new `AboutController`?
When we moved more logic into the main app, we made some assumptions
about manifest art that were different than Impress 2020's, in hopes
that they would be More Correct for potential future edge cases.
Turns out, they were actually *less* correct for *current* edge cases!
Chips linked us to a few examples, including this Reddit post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/neopets/comments/1b8fd72/i_dont_think_thats_the_correct_image/
Fixed now!
According to our GlitchTip error tracker, every time we deploy, a
couple instances of `Async::Stop` and `Async::Container::Terminate`
come in, presumably because:
1. systemd sends a STOP signal to the `falcon host` process.
2. `falcon host` gives the in-progress requests some time to finish up
3. Sometimes some requests take too long, and so something happens.
(either a timer in Falcon or a KILL signal from systemd, not sure!)
that leads the ongoing requests to finally be terminated by raising
an `Async::Stop` or `Async::Container::Terminate`. (I'm not sure
when each happens, and maybe they happen at different points in the
process? Maybe one happens for the actual long-running ones, vs the
other happens if more requests come in during the meantime but get
caught in the spin-down process?)
4. Rails bubbles up the errors, our Sentry library notices them and
sends them to GlitchTip, the user presumably receives the generic
500 error, and the app can finally close down gracefully.
It's hard for me to validate that this is *exactly* what's happening
here or that my mitigation makes sense, but my logic here is basically,
if these exceptions are bubbling up as "uncaught exceptions" and
spamming up our error log, then the best solution would be to catch
them!
So in this change, we add an error handler for these two error classes,
which hopefully will 1) give users a better experience when this
happens, and 2) no longer send these errors to our logging 🤞❗️
That strange phenomenon where the best way to get a noisy bug out of
your logs is to fix it lmao
Oh rough, when moving an item list entry from one list to another, our
logic to merge their quantities if it's already in that list was just
fully crashing!
That is, moves without anything to merge were working, but moves that
required a merge were raising Internal Server Error 500, because the
`list_id` attribute wasn't present.
I'm not sure why this ever worked, I'm assuming using `list_id` in the
`where` condition would include it in the `select` implicitly in a
previous version of Rails? Or maybe Rails used to have fallback
behavior to run a second query, instead of raising
`MissingAttributeError` like it does now?
Well, in any case, this seems to fix it! Whew!
I don't think people see this very often visually, but it's showing up
in our error logging! The Rails API changed here long ago and we didn't
notice: to render public files, we should use the `file` argument
instead of `template`.
I previously added a warning to the item page, and thought about doing
one here but was sicky and misjudged the complexity and forgot you
don't need to hook into the `knownGlitches` API field to do it! Easy
peasy for a hacky little bug message!
I *think* what I'm observing is that:
1. The zone restrictions are different between these items.
2. The zone restrictions *change* when reloading the page sometimes. (I
assume from remodeling?)
3. The items look very buggy on many pets, because many appearances
seem to expect different zone restrictions than the item actually
has.
I think what this means is:
1. TNT has finally unbound restricted zones from the item level, and
allowed different appearances to have different restrictions. Neat!
2. The API still serves it the same way, as a field on the item.
So I think this means we need to update our schema to reflect the fact
that an item's `zones_restrict` field isn't *really* a property of the
item; it's a property of the combination of the item and the current
body ID.
My gut take here is that maybe this means it's time for the Large
Refactor that I've kinda been interested in for a while, but been
avoiding because of Impress 2020 compatibility issues: instead of a
`body_id` field on assets, and having them directly belong to items,
make an `ItemAppearance` record (closer to how 2020's GQL API modeled
it, I was looking ahead to this possibility!) that's keyed on item and
body ID, and assets belong to *that*.
Then, we could move the zones restriction field onto the
`ItemAppearance` record instead. And then it doesn't really matter to
us how TNT models it internally; whatever we saw is what we use.
(Again, I looked ahead to this in the 2020 app, and tried to use the
`restrictedZones` field on `ItemAppearance` when possible—even though
it secretly just reads directly from the `Item`!)
…but that's a pretty big departure from how things are modeled now, and
isn't something we can just throw together—especially coordinating it
across both apps. I was getting close to being able to shut off 2020
from a *front-facing* perspective (but still keeping a lot of the GQL
endpoints open for the wardrobe-2020 frontend), but I don't think we're
very close to being able to try to target turning off 2020's *backend*
as a prereq to this; or at least, if we do, we should expect that to
take a while. (Counting now, there's still 9 GQL queries—not as many as
I expected tbh, but still quite a few.)
So idk how to sequence this! But for now, let's put out a warning, and
start setting expectations.
The main *intended* user-facing effect of this is that "Items you own"
and "Items you want" filters should work in wardrobe-2020 now!
It is also possible that I messed something up and that this might
break unrelated searches somehow! We'll find out!! 😅
Did this before we had the ability to trigger searches from the app
itself, to allow me to open up the browser JS console and call this
function directly. Now we can just do it in app, goodbye!
Yay, we finally added it, the part where we include the appearance data
for the items based on both the species/color and the alt style! Now,
switching to Faerie Acara correctly filters the search only to items
that would fit (I think literally just only body_id=0 items right now,
but we're not banking on that!)
This only *really* shows up right now in the case where you construct
an Advanced Search form query (which only the wardrobe-2020 app does
now, and in limited form), and we return the query back (which only
gets used by the HTML view for item search, which doesn't have any way
to build one of these requests against it).
This is because, if you just type in `fits:alt-style-87305`, we always
keep your search string the same when outputting it back to you, to
avoid the weirdness of canonicalizing it and changing it up on you in
surprising ways!
But idk, this is just looking forward a bit, and keeping the system's
semantics in place. I hope someday we can bring robust text filter
and Advanced Search stuff back into the main app again, maybe!
I considered this at first, but decided to keep it simple until it
turned out to matter. Oops, it already matters, lol!
I want the item search code to be able to easily tell if the series
name is real or a placeholder, so we can decide whether to build the
filter text in `fits:$series-$color-$species` form or
`fits:alt-style-$id` form.
So in this change, we keep it that `AltStyle#series_name` returns the
placeholder string if none is set, but callers can explicitly ask
whether it's a real series name or not. Will use this in our next
change!
Previously we did this hackily by comparing the ID to a hardcoded list
of IDs, but I think putting this in the database is clearer and more
robust, and it should also help with our upcoming item search stuff
that will filter by it!
Previously, passing in `fits:blue` would cause a crash, because
`species_name` part of the split would be `nil`, oops!
In this change, we use a regex for more explicitness about the pattern
we're trying to match. We'll also add more cases next! (You'll note the
error message mentions `fits:nostalgic-faerie-draik`, which isn't
actually possible yet, but will be!)
Previously, the query wouldn't fill into the search box or page title
if e.g. parsing had failed. Now it does!
I'm not sure why the rescue strategy we previously had here doesn't
work anymore (I'm sure it must've in the past sometime?), but this is
simpler anyway, let's go!
I think this is a bit clearer and lets us clean up some of the syntax a
bit (don't need to always say `filters <<`), and also it will let us
use `return`, which I'm interested in for my next change!
Right, fitting isn't just body_id = this one, it's also body_id=0!
Anyway, doing this query on its own is still deathly slow, I wonder if
the idea I had about left joins (back when I was still working in a
Rails version that didn't support it lol) could help! Might poke at
that a smidge.
Oh right, `imageUrl` is the name of the field relative to what the app
expects, but under the hood `useOutfitAppearance` actually makes that
an alias for `imageUrlV2(idealSize: SIZE_600)`.
So we need to cache it as the same field with the same params, rather
than as just plain `imageUrl`!
This fixes the bug where wearing an item from search would require a
network round-trip and visually remove all items in the meantime.
(Also, none of this issue was visible to most users, because item
search is still feature-flagged onto the old GQL one for most people!)
This makes clicking on search results in the new mode actually work! It
correctly adds it to the outfit, and removes other items.
The thing that's behaving strangely is that, when you add the item, we
visually remove all items until we can finish a fresh network request
for what they should all look like. This probably means that the cache
lookup for `useOutfitAppearance` is not as satisfied with what we cache
here as `findItemConflicts` is? Something to investigate!
It'd be nice to customize the message a bit, but this should be rare
and I'd prefer the simplicity of just going with the default text.
I ran into this when I made a mistake in how I process the return value
of search results, so React Query caught and raised the error via
React, as intended! And I was annoyed that it wasn't logged anywhere,
so that's my motivation for this change—but also, the old message is
pretty meh and has some layout problems anyway.
