Interestingly, these items *are* correctly detecting their special
color on the homepage for model progress. So, we *do* have the ability
to detect this. But I don't have good item data locally, so it would
be hard to test this, so I'm just gonna go with the cheap solution
again, sorry XP
In bfd825d, we refactored the "is item body-specific?" check. In the process, we dropped the check for the manual override flag, `explicitly_body_specific?`. Not sure if it was an accident or if I was just _so_ confident that it was gonna work :P In any case, re-add the check!
Okay, surprise, the bug was unrelated to Camo config (though I'm glad I cleaned
that up anyway :P). We now, at a low level, serve a placeholder image for item
thumbnail URL if, for some reason, we don't have a good thumbnail URL on hand.
It turns out that some pets for seemingly nonstandard colors have the
standard body type anyway, and vice-versa. This implies that we should
stop relying on a color's standardness, but, for the time being, we've
just revised the prediction model:
Old model:
* If I see a body_id, I find the corresponding color_ids, and it's wearable
by all pet types with those color_ids.
New model:
* If I see a body_id,
* If it also belongs to a basic pet type, it's a standard body ID.
* It therefore fits all pet types of standard color (if there's
more than one body ID modeled already). (Not really,
because of weird exceptions like Orange Chia. Should that be
standard or not?)
* If it doesn't also belong to a basic pet type, it's a nonstandard
body ID.
* It therefore only belongs to one color, and therefore the item
fits all pet types of the same color.
Some lame benchmarking on my box, dev, cache classes, many items:
No proxies:
Fresh JSON: 175, 90, 90, 93, 82, 88, 158, 150, 85, 167 = 117.8
Cached JSON: (none)
Fresh HTML: 371, 327, 355, 328, 322, 346 = 341.5
Cached HTML: 173, 123, 175, 187, 171, 179 = 168
Proxies:
Fresh JSON: 175, 183, 269, 219, 195, 178 = 203.17
Cached JSON: 88, 70, 89, 162, 80, 77 = 94.3
Fresh HTML: 494, 381, 350, 334, 451, 372 = 397
Cached HTML: 176, 170, 104, 101, 111, 116 = 129.7
So, overhead is significant, but the gains when cached (and that should be
all the time, since we currently have 0 evictions) are definitely worth
it. Worth pushing, and probably putting some future effort into reducing
overhead.
On production (again, lame), items#index was consistently averaging
73-74ms when super healthy, and 82ms when pets#index was being louder
than usual. For reference is all. This will probably perform
significantly worse at first (in JSON, anyway, since HTML is already
mostly cached), so it might be worth briefly warming the cache after
pushing.
That is, once we get our list of IDs from the search engine, only
fetch records whose JSON we don't already have cached.
It's simpler here to use as_json, but it'd probably be even faster
if I figure out how to serve a plain JSON string from a Rails
controller. In the meantime, requests of entirely cached items
are coming in at about 85ms on average on my box (dev, cache
classes, many items), about 10ms better than the last
iteration.
Specifically, the Tyrannian Meerca Spear is a pb item that contains
"pea", so its item page is only willing to show a Pea Chia. Now,
a color must be a whole word in the item name for special color
determination to work.
Confirmed features:
* Output (retrieval, sorting, etc.)
* Name (positive and negative, but new behavior)
* Flags (positive and negative)
Planned features:
* users:owns, user:wants
Known issues:
* Sets are broken
* Don't render properly
* Shouldn't actually be done as joined sets, anyway, since
we actually want (set1_zone1 OR set1_zone2) AND
(set2_zone1 OR set2_zone2), which will require breaking
it into multiple terms queries.
* Name has regressed: ignores phrases, doesn't require *all*
words. While we're breaking sets into multiple queries,
maybe we'll do something similar for name. In fact, we
really kinda have to if we're gonna keep sorting by name,
since "straw hat" returns all hats. Eww.
For example, the Meerca Maid Tray is a foreground item, so the SWF is marked
as compatible with all body types, but the item itself is clearly marked as
Meercas-only. items#show reflected this properly, but the swf_assets#index
call that the wardrobe uses ignored item.species_support_ids.
So, /bodies/:body_id/swf_assets.json?item_ids[]=... was deprecated in favor
of /pet_types/:pet_type_id/items/swf_assets.json?item_ids=[]..., which is
much like the former route but, before loading assets, also loads the pet
type and items, then filters the items by compatibility, then only loads
assets for the compatible items.
After changing the database structure, we lost the feature where, once we discover
new assets for an item for a given body ID, we disconnect previously connected
assets. This commit reinstates that feature.
