Lmao I've been testing with an outfit that has all the kinds of items,
so I didn't notice that this new refactor to `@items[:dyeworks]` style
of tracking the items returns `nil` when there's none, instead of `[]`.
(I always make this mistake when I use `group_by` lmao sob)
In this change, we give the `@items` hash a default value, so that will
stop happening!
Previously, I added a Dyeworks section that was incorrect: the base
item being available in the NC Mall does *not* mean you can necessarily
dye it with a potion!
In this change, we lean on Owls to tell us more about Dyeworks status,
and only group items in this section that Owls has marked as "Permanent
Dyeworks".
We don't have support for limited-time Dyeworks items yet—I've sent out
a message asking the Owls team for more info on what they do for those
items!
I started writing this up, then sent a preview to a friend, and he was
like "oh cool, but also this is not correct?"
I didn't realize Dyeworks has limited-time support to be *able* to dye
certain items. Hey, glad we're writing this guide for people like me,
then! lol
I wonder if we can lean on Owls for this. It seems like they already
list "Permanent Dyeworks" for some items, I wonder if they say
something special for active limited-edition Dyeworks items!
Oh right, it's possible for `Item#pb?` to return true, but
`Item#pb_color` to return `nil`, if the item has the paintbrush item
description but we can't find a color whose name matches the item name.
This would be expected if a new color were added to Neopets, and PB
items for it were modeled by the community, but we hadn't manually
added the color to the database yet.
Previously, the Item Getting Guide would crash in this scenario. Now,
it correctly handles the possibility of a `nil` value for `pb_color`,
and shows some placeholder info.
To test this, I temporarily edited some item names to not contain the
color name anymore (e.g. "P-rate Elephante Shirt and Vest"), then
loaded the guide and made changes until it no longer crashed.
This doesn't matter a ton in production, where we already have most of
our manifests loaded! But it matters a lot on my relatively-fresh
development instance, at times like now when images.neopets.com is slow
to respond. A single item search was taking minutes before this change
(5 seconds of timeout per asset for 30 items!), but now takes a few
seconds the first time, as it should!
Now, for colors like Mutant or Magma where there's no paint brush
image to show, we use a sample pet image instead, to help it have equal
visual weight and clarity as the cases with the paint brushes.
We do some cleverness in here to make sure to always show the relevant
species, if possible!
Ohh yeah, this helps communicate the process much better, especially
for what the Shops/Trades links mean.
I think I'm gonna also go get the paint brush thumbnail images and add
them to the database too, to help better communicate that this is a
paint brush item situation.
This'll affect the recommended acquisition method by a lot!
NC Mall info like current price isn't surfaced anywhere else in the app
right now. It'd probably be good to add to the item page, and maybe
some other places too!
TNT requested that we figure out ways to connect the dots between
people's intentions on DTI to their purchases in the NC Mall.
But rather than just slam ad links everywhere, our plan is to design an
actually useful feature about it: the "Item Getting Guide". It'll break
down items by how you can actually get them (NP economy, NC Mall,
retired NC, Dyeworks, etc), and we're planning some cute actions you
can take, like shortcuts for getting them onto trade wishlists or into
your NC Mall cart.
This is just a little demo version of the page, just breaking down
items specified in the URL into NC/NP/PB! Later we'll do more granular
breakdown than this, with more info and actions—and we'll also like,
link to it at all, which isn't the case yet! (The main way we expect
people to get here is by a "Get these items" button we'll add to the
outfit editor, but there might be other paths, too.)
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!
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!)
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!
For now, I'm doing it with a secret feature flag, since I want to be
committing but it isn't all quite working yet!
Search works right, and the appearance data is getting returned, but I
don't have the Apollo Cache integrations yet, which we rely on more
than I remembered!
Also, alt styles will crash it for now!
Adding new functionality to the item search JSON endpoint, and adding
an adapter layer to match the GQL format!
Hopefully this will be pretty drop-in-able, we'll see!
Preparing to finally move wardrobe-2020's item search to use the main
app's API endpoints instead!
One blocker I forgot about here: Impress 2020 has actual support for
knowing an item's true appearance, like by reading the manifest and
stuff, that we haven't really ported over. I feel like maybe I should
pause and work on the changes to manifest-archiving that I'd been
planning anyway? I'll think about it.
I think this was to explain why `order` wasn't part of this query, and
we probably used to sort in the controller? But now the item search
module takes care of all that, this is just confusing to say now imo!
It was a bit tricky to figure out the right API for this, since I'm
looking ahead to the possibility of splitting these across multiple
pages with more detail, like we do in DTI 2020.
What I like about this API is that the caller gets to apply, or not
apply, whatever scopes they want to the underlying hanger set (like
`includes` or `order`), without violating the usual syntax by e.g.
passing it as a parameter to a method.
Oh yeah, a long-standing limitation. Good thing we're better at stuff
now!
This is also probably the real cause of the weird number of slight
discrepancies between main DTI and DTI 2020 when I eyeballed stuff lol
oh, well, that and the missing default-lists. A bit messy!
Ahh I see, the way we got away with not having a `trading` scope before
was a weird metaprogramming `{owned/wanted}_trading` situation. Okay,
let's trash that in favor of our new stuff! And that helps us bulk the
queries too which is nice.
Some important little upgrades but mostly straightforward!
Note that there's still a known issue where item searches crash, I was hoping that this was a bug in Rails 4.2 that would be fixed on upgading to 5, but nope, oh well!
Also uhh I just got a bit silly and didn't actually mean to go all the way to 5.2 in one go, I had meant to start at 5.0… but tbh the 5.1 and 5.2 changes seem small, and this seems to be working, so. Yeah ok let's roll!
Again I'm just not convinced of the perf on this, and it enables us to delete some whole infra over it, we can improve it another time if it's useful to!
Just removing some caching and the expiration of it! There's still more superfluous(?) caching on the item page to audit, but these seem a bit more sensible about avoiding loading extra data.
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.
