Before this change, a fully-modeled item (Dyeworks Burgundy: Gown of
the Night) was displaying as still needing the Chia. This was because
looking for "standard" body IDs like this caught up some of the weird
Chia bodies.
I think there's probably something here where we need to like, relabel
certain colors? But honestly, the better version of this logic would
probably be to lean more into the `basic` label in this logic.
But hey, that's a refactor for another time. I gotta go eat!
Noticing a lot of Maraquan items on the homepage today, and they're
doing that thing of expecting standard body types to be relevant too,
because I think we wrote this logic before the Maraquan Mynci ended up
having the same standard Mynci body? (Maybe? Or maybe I'm being
ahistorical and I just wrote this wrong to begin with lol)
In any case, this is more accurate, and I think I'm also maybe
incidentally noticing that it's running faster, at least in my brief
before/after production testing? (There's *more* queries, like 100! But
many of them are *very* fast lookups, coming in at under 1ms—and also a
lot of them are dupes being served by Rails's request-scoped query
cache.)
I have some other changes planned too, but these are some easy ones. I
also turn back on this stuff in development, in hopes that my changes
can make these queries fast enough to not be a big deal anymore!
This is the second part of the previous change `efda6d74`, in which we
switch out the item search query conditions!
This was a two-parter to ease deployment: first deploy the change with
the migration, then *run* the migration (because it's an unusually slow
one), then deploy this change that actually uses it.
Another way to approach this would've been to deploy it all in one
commit, but not set it as `current` until we had run the migration.
That would have been a reasonable approach too!
This is the first part of a change to improve search performance, by
caching occupied zone IDs and supported body IDs onto the Item record
itself, instead of always doing joins with `SwfAsset`.
It's unfortunate, because part of the power of SQL is joins! But doing
joins with big tables, in ways that can't take advantage of indexes in
the same ways as we often want to, is… slow.
It's possible there's something I'm misunderstanding about SQL
optimization, and this _could_ be done with query optimization or
indexes instead of duplicating data like this? This complexity carries
the risk of data getting out of sync in unforeseen ways. But this is
what I know how to do, and it seems to be working, so! Okay!
This hasn't worked for a while anyway! Let's remove the bits of code
where we deal with it, and the database field that signals it. (We also
make a corresponding change in Impress 2020, so it doesn't crash trying
to query based on the `prank` column.)
I also ran this snippet to clear out all the Nebula stuff in the db:
```rb
Color.transaction do
nebula = Color.where(prank: true).find_by_name("Nebula")
nebula.pet_types.includes(pet_states: :swf_assets).each do |pet_type|
pet_type.pet_states.each do |pet_state|
pet_state.parent_swf_asset_relationships.each do |psa|
psa.swf_asset.destroy!
psa.destroy!
end
pet_state.destroy!
end
pet_type.destroy!
end
nebula.destroy!
end
```
See comment for details! I wonder if other items have been affected by
this in the past. I think probably what happened before was that we
successfully created this item, but failed to create the *translation*,
so when migrating over the Patchwork Staff all its translated fields
were empty? (That's what I found looking in the database today.)
But yeah, thankfully our crash logging at health.openneo.net gave me
the name of a pet someone was trying to model, and so I was able to
find the bug and fix it!
Our production data now contains basic hashes for all species/color
combinations, and it's easy enough for a dev copy of the site to get
them too by running `rails public_data:pull`. So, I think it's time to
retire this hardcoded set, and get one more file out of our codebase!
There's some funny bugs we had here, like "Relic Elephante Jewellery"
and "Royal Girl Skeith Bodice" getting assigned "Ice", and
"Tyrannian Meerca Spear" being "Pea" lmao
I went and checked all the assignments now and they look good to me!
```ruby
Item.is_pb.order(:name).
map { |i| [i.pb_color&.human_name, i.name] }
```
I think this has just been broken for a long time? And I don't think
it's very useful in a world 15 years later, where our problem *used* to
be giant gaps in our library, which isn't really our data problem
anymore.
I took this ordering from a specific place on Impress 2020, but I think
that was in a context where the pose mattered more? Here though, I'm
realizing that I'd rather show any known-unglitched pose than the happy
masc or whatever we semi-randomly chose.
instead of doing the random choice we do for most colors.
This is especially noticeable in cases where like, I'm looking at the
Elderlyboy Ogrin and like, it has *work* put into the masc eyes, and
them fem eyes are just the standard ones.
Huh, this is a bit odd, I think we took this from Impress 2020's
`canonicalPetStateForBodyLoader` SQL query… but actually, it doesn't
really make sense? and `petStatesForPetTypeLoader` has a more sensible
ordering, and is the one the app uses in more ways. Maybe that's a
mistake we made back then, or a bug we fixed only in one place?
Anyway, this fixes why the item previews were like. using a LOT of
glitched pet states and I was like "dang did a lot of them break
recently?"
Nah we were just. not pulling the right ones lol
Oh right, forgot about this lol!
The specific effect on Impress 2020 where the button label expands is,
kinda hard to implement in normal CSS/JS, and so I'm not in the mood
and I'm settling for the `title` attribute lol
We call it enough times on this page, and it *does* have a SQL query,
that I want to cache it! (Also I want to make it fewer species queries
if I can tbh…)
Adapting what the Impress 2020 UI does, but in Ruby instead!
I feel like this is case is really starting to show the power of doing
this stuff in Rails instead of via an API… we can *really* take
advantage of our models and our handy idioms at all points. This is
just so much less *code* than this feature takes in Node + GraphQL +
React.
We used to use this to determine what color to show by default on the
item page preview for, like, Maraquan-specific items. Now, we infer it
from our actual customization data, rather than these heuristics!
There's still a database field for `Item#manual_special_color_id`. We
can still read and write this from the support UI, and Impress 2020
still slightly uses it from the homepage, so I'm not removing from the
database right now.
I'm about to reimplement the more-robust version of what this used to
be: how the item page used to say "sometimes" after certain zones in
the occupied list.
Now, we're going to do parity with 2020, and list the actual species!
I like that this takes away the weird `#sometimes` method on the `Zone`
class, which was always an odd hack for just this small thing.
Not using this on the item page preview yet, but we will!
I like this approach over e.g. a web component specifically for the
sandboxing: while I don't exactly *distrust* JS that we're loading from
Neopets.com, I don't like the idea of *any* part of the site that
executes arbitrary JS unsafely at runtime, even if we theoretically
trust where it theoretically came from. I don't want any failure
upstream to have effects on us!
I copied basically all of the JS from a related project
`impress-media-server` that I had spun up at one point, to investigate
similar embed techniques. Easy peasy drop-in-squeezy!
Also adapted from the Impress 2020 logic!
Note that I refactored `compatible_pet_type` to a series of scopes on
`PetType`. I think this is a simpler, clearer, and more flexible API!
This is a cute thing that I think sets us up for other stuff down the
line: move more of the outfit appearance logic into the `Outfit` class!
Now, we set up the item page with a temporary instance of `Outfit`,
then ask for its `visible_layers`.
Still missing restricted-zones logic and such, that's next!
Just stripping out the big React component, and having Rails output it!
There's a lot of work rn in extracting the Impress 2020 dependency from
the `wardrobe-2020` React app, and I'm just curious to see if we can
simplify it at all by pulling this stuff *way* back to basics, and
deleting the item page part of `wardrobe-2020` altogether.
In this draft, we regress a lot of functionality: it just shows the
item on a Blue Acara, with no ability to change it! I'm gonna play with
putting more of that back in.
I also haven't actually removed any of the item page React code; I just
stopped calling it. That can be a cleanup for another time, once we're
confident in this experiment!
Oh huh, TIL in Ruby `^` *always* means "start of line", whereas in many
languages' regular expression engines it means "start of string" unless
you enable a special multiline flag for the pattern.
I've fixed this in a number of expressions now!
I'm noticing this in the context of doing some security training work
where this the cause of a sample vulnerability, but, looking at our own
case, I don't think there was anything *abusable* here? But this is
just more correct, so let's be more correct!
Huh, I thought I'd tried some invalid dates and they gave me
*surprising* output instead of raising an error. Well, maybe it can do
both, depending on exactly the nature of the unexpected input?
In any case, I found that a bad month name like "UwU" raised an error.
So, let's catch it if so!
Oh right, if I assume "date in the past means it's for next year", then
that means that, when the date *does pass*, we won't realize it!
e.g. if Owls says "Dyeable Thru July 15", then on July 14 we'll parse
that as July 15, 2024; but on July 16 we'll parse it as July 16, 2025,
and so we'll think it's *still* dyeable. Under this logic, it's
actually impossible for a limited Dyeworks date to *ever* be in the
past, I think!
I think 3 months is a good compromise: it gives Owls plenty of time to
update, but allows for events that could last as long as 9 months into
the future, if I'm doing my math right.
