Tbh I'm not sure `special_color` is actually used anywhere? It used to
be how we decide what to show in the previewer on the item page, but
that's been replaced with the 2020 logic, so idk…
But in any case, I noticed that the description doesn't match the
pattern we have, so here's the fix!
I looked at this and was like. "ok literally what is
`nonstandard_colors` trying to do"
reading it again now, I'm realizing the idea is that it probably runs
two queries: one to get nonstandard colors, then depends on
ActiveRecord to implicitly convert the relation to an array and then to
IDs for the second query? Instead of doing a join??
Idk, it's unused, so trash it!
This used to be the behavior, and the site has plenty of graceful
fallbacks for it, I just forgot this one when doing Rails upgrades!
Note that the impress-2020 stuff is *not* as graceful about this, so
the wardrobe page won't show the pet until the color is in the DB. Ah
well, still an improvement!
Today I learned that nginx requires a special invocation to listen to
IPv6 addresses as well as IPv4. On some of my other projects, this was
causing Let's Encrypt certificate renewal to fail, because Let's
Encrypt prefers to connect over IPv6 when an AAAA record is present, so
its challenges were always returning 404, because nginx wasn't
listening on IPv6.
This shouldn't be affecting impress in production, because we don't
have an AAAA record right now. But I'm just making this change in all
my projects, to make sure this doesn't bite me in the future!
I'm not sure where these duplicate records have been coming from over
the years (I checked the timestamps and it's been happening
occasionally since 2013 up to late last year, there were ~1,600
instances), but for now let's just get rid of them!
This is related to the issues we've been addressing lately where some
biology assets have manifests but no PNG specified in them: the older
copies of the assets would have our generated PNG as a fallback, but
the newer copies would get served as part of the pet appearance *in
addition to* the older copies, and the newer copies would be marked as
having no DTI-generated image, which our system wasn't always able to
handle.
We've primarily been addressing this by leaning into more graceful
failure modes of skipping certain layers, but… these layers *shouldn't
be here*, and are cluttering up support tools and such; let's be rid of
them!
I ran this today seemingly without issue, but I kept a backup of the
`yarn db:export:public-data` task in `impress-2020` to be able to check
and rollback if we discover a mistake.
One last note: the `ORDER BY` clause in the `GROUP_CONCAT` call was a
late addition, *after* I ran this in production. Scanning the console
output, it seems like ordering by ID was MySQL's default behavior here
anyway (makes sense!), so I'm not gonna bother to rollback and re-run,
but I think specifying this is helpful to ensure we're not depending on
unspecified behavior and to be really clear about our intentions of
which record to keep (the one with the smallest DTI ID number).
I thought this refactor of this change was working, but actually it was
just failing to build the JS lmao. Here's a version with correct syntax!
😅
Is there a syntax for this kind of thing that I'm just forgetting? Idk,
oh well!
Okay right, the wardrobe-2020 app treats `state` as a bit of an
override thing, and `pose` is the main canonical field for how a pet
looks. We were missing a few pieces here:
1. After loading a pet, we weren't including the `pose` field in the
initial query string for the wardrobe URL, but we _were_ including
the `state` field, so the outfit would get set up with a conflicting
pet state ID vs pose.
2. When saving an outfit, we weren't taking the `state` field into
account at all. This could cause the saved outfit to not quite match
how it actually looked in-app, because the default pet state for
that species/color/pose trio could be different; and regardless, the
outfit state would come back with `appearanceId` set to `null`,
which wouldn't match the local outfit state, which would trigger an
infinite loop.
Here, we complete the round-trip of the `state` field, from pet loading
to outfit saving to the outfit data that comes back after saving!
I'm not really using this lately, and it _only_ creates vulnerability
surface area when not in use; so, while I'm pretty sure we locked this
down correctly to only admin accounts, I'm disabling it just as good
practice. We can add this back later if we need it again!
They're no longer referenced in either app! Begone!
(The translated values are still available in the DTI 2020 repository's
history, under `scripts/db`!)
Now that DTI 2020 has been deployed without references to the
translations tables, we can stop keeping them in sync!
Next step is to drop the tables and be done with them altogether! (I
have a backup of the public data for this too, as does this repo!)
This happens on the Baby Kougra, where for most poses half of the
assets have a manifest that includes an SVG but no PNG. Skip 'em!
I considered adding a glitch tag for this, but idk I think we can do
that once we're aware of an actual case where this causes visible
issues.
On the small-screen layout, the popover goes down and covers the item
list, which isn't a big deal in context; so I want it to be basically
as tall as it can be without being unwieldy, to give more info.
But on the large-screen layout, it doesn't take long at all for the
popover to start intersecting the pet preview, because it *has* to go
up and cover the pet preview. So, I'm much more reserved about how much
vertical space I'm willing to give it!
(I also considered sending the popover off to the *right* of the button,
to cover the item list, but it felt *way* too weird imo! Especially in
the expressions case.)
The intent of this glitch message was that, when UC or Invisible pets
hide an item because of a zones-restrict thing, it would still show up
in the items panel as fitting a certain zone, whereas it should have
been in the "Incompatible" section and having none of its zones applied.
But the previously implementation would like, show this message even for
items that _were_ correctly marked as Incompatible? And that the server
returned no layers for, because it doesn't fit this body type to begin
with? (e.g. put a Grarrl hat on a Grarrl, then switch to Acara, and the
Grarrl hat is marked Incompatible—but would also show this confusing
message; or similarly with switching to Alt Styles)
So, when the server just returned no layers for this item to begin with,
don't show this message!
Now that we're tracking tab state ourselves, it's pretty easy to just
pass the `initialFocusRef` to the right place instead of to both!
This helps switching between the tabs feel a lot smoother, because we
don't have to re-render and fade-in all the poses again.
I'm keeping it in the same place for now rather than trying to fold it
into Styles, because I think that's net-less-confusing (since Styles
work pretty differently, e.g. different color requirements), and
certainly less work either way lol!
For Alt Style outfits, it's useful to call special attention to the Alt
Style feature as the likely cause of incompatibilities.
(Incompatibilities previously were most often caused by choosing a
species-specific item, then switching to another species. We generally
make it hard to enter this state, by hiding incompatible items during
search.)
Now that the pose picker button can have text content too, things were
getting pretty cramped horizontally on smaller screens! Now we use the
`sm` size when it's small-time.
I'm not planning to port full Alt Style support over to the 2020
frontend, I really am winding that down, but adding a couple lil API
parameters are *by far* the easiest way to get Alt Styles working in
the main app because of how it calls the 2020 API. So here we are, just
using new parameters for DTI 2020 that I'm gonna deploy to impress-2020
first!
Specifically, I was looking at the new "Stormy Cloud Kacheek" items,
and was surprised to find that, in the outfit editor, they all get
grouped under "Markings" (and therefore the UI treats them as
mutually-exclusive via hidden radio button and only bolds one at a
time), but they aren't actually conflicting because they occupy
different zones named "Markings".
In this change, we make the zone groups actually just be *by zone*
rather than jumbling all of the zones with the same label together; but
in most cases, we still keep the same simplified display. In the case
of the "Stormy Cloud Kacheek" items though, we now get a few groups:
`Glasses`, `Markings (#6)`, and `Markings (#16)`. Glasses is chosen
by coincidence because it's the first zone label for that item
alphabetically (even though that item also occupies a third "Markings"
zone), and then the other two know to disambiguate from each other.
There's an opportunity here to cheat things further, like to
*intentionally* select items like "Glasses" that are less ambiguous
when possible. I'm not aware of enough other cases like this for that
to really matter, though, so I'm just leaving it as-is!
I tested this a *bit* on other outfits, and everything looked fine at
a glance, so I'm just moving forward—but I'll make an announcement to
ask people to help take a look!
Two motivations here:
1. Unconverted pets should no longer exist on Neopets.com (and we
especially don't expect new ones), so this logic helps no one.
2. The Baby Pteri keeps getting overridden to be marked as Unconverted
because it has only one asset, which is incorrect.
A decent heuristic for a bygone era, goodbye!
This wasn't causing big problems because we made resilient little
choices in a lot of little places… but it's confusing as a potential
state, and the Styles chooser wasn't selecting the "Default" option
after you switch—which is what tipped us off!
Yay it works(*)! But two major missing pieces:
- Outfit saving doesn't persist it at all
- Item compatibility is unaffected: items will still appear in search
and in the preview, even when they don't fit anymore.
To help with space, I'm just showing the word "Nostalgic" (or "???" if
it's from a series we don't recognize, this is hardcoded by ID), and
trusting that from context it will be obvious that it's the "Nostalgic
Faerie" case or whatever. (Moreover, in both the button and the select
we're omitting the species name, by similar reasoning!)
Note that this _still_ doesn't actually apply the style to the outfit
whatsoever; this is all just local state as we're continuing to play
with UI concepts. Actually applying it is probably next though! (Though
there's a couple more UI things I want to do, like some affordances to
clarify that a Style is applied and that Expression changes won't work.)
Oh right, React Query's API is slightly different, fixed! (Previously,
this would cause the PosePicker to show before all the data was ready,
so alt styles would sometimes pop in after the popover was already
open.)
On small screens, the PosePicker opens down, and we put the tabs on the
top, to be near the button.
On large screens, the PosePicker opens up, and we put the tabs on the
bottom, to be near the button.
Previously, we always set `placement="bottom-end"`, which on small
screens behaved as written, and on large screens there would not be
space to open downward so it would open upward instead.
Now, we set the placement explicitly based on a media breakpoint, and
we change the `flexDirection` of the tabs container on the same media
breakpoint.
I'm playing with using text to call more attention to this button, but
I'm not altogether pleased with the design yet. I'll leave it there for
me and Support users, but hide it for most people until we've got a
more complete concept.
That way, I can stop being on a branch and be working on main, and
deploy stuff to preview live, without having to share it with everyone
just yet! (This was the motivation for finally adding Support tooling
to main DTI lol!)
