Add ignore spawn block monster flag

[marmichalski]

Pull Request Prelude

• I have followed proper The Forgotten Server code styling.
• I have read and understood the contribution guidelines before making this PR.
• I am aware that this PR may be closed if the above-mentioned criteria are not fulfilled.

Changes Proposed

Issues addressed: #3600 (spawn block, black knight)
Supersedes: #2964

[ghost]

other than missing register_monster_type.lua entry, everything alright

[soul4soul]

otservbr already has this feature, they called the flag isBlockable. While it's not as descriptive as what you picked it would be nice to keep compatibility where possible.

Should the rest of the non-blockable creature flags be added in this commit too? A decent list is on tibiawiki https://tibia.fandom.com/wiki/Updates/10.70#Non-Blockable_Creatures

[marmichalski]

otservbr already has this feature, they called the flag isBlockable. While it's not as descriptive as what you picked it would be nice to keep compatibility where possible.

It's hard to tell what that means. Can't you block it's path? Can't it block yours? Can't you block it's attacks?

About marking monster's spawns as non-blockable, I would not add it at all to the repo, as it's a breaking change (your spawns will act differently). Cip, as usual, made the spawns non-blockable by accident. Add one feature, break 5 others 🙄

[ghost]

yeah we decided to add only the functionality, but not the monsters

[ranisalt]

otservbr already has this feature, they called the flag isBlockable. While it's not as descriptive as what you picked it would be nice to keep compatibility where possible.

It seems perfectly reasonable to support it and issue a warning asking the user to rename before TFS 1.next

[marmichalski]

otservbr already has this feature, they called the flag isBlockable. While it's not as descriptive as what you picked it would be nice to keep compatibility where possible.

It seems perfectly reasonable to support it and issue a warning asking the user to rename before TFS 1.next

I, on the other hand, see no reason to support something just because a downstream project had it implemented. 🤷

[Zbizu]

They can adjust their code to ours. It's just one string.

[ghost]

I have not tested but I don't think their monster files is compatible with tfs anyway

[DSpeichert]

I see ignoresSpawnBlock and ignorespawnblock used interchangeably. Extremely confusing, let's settle on one spelling throughout.

[ghost]

🤔 by the way can you add the delayed spawn feature together with this PR? #2964

[marmichalski]

🤔 by the way can you add the delayed spawn feature together with this PR? #2964

No. I can do that in next PR.

[Erza]

I see ignoresSpawnBlock and ignorespawnblock used interchangeably. Extremely confusing, let's settle on one spelling throughout.

It's just in XML, like every other flag. All flags are lowercase in XML.

XML

<flag ignorespawnblock="0" />
<flag canpushitems="1" />
<flag canpushcreatures="1" />
<flag targetdistance="1" />
<flag staticattack="90" />
<flag runonhealth="0" />

C++

bool ignoresSpawnBlock = false;
bool canPushItems = false;
bool canPushCreatures = false;
int32_t targetDistance = 1;
uint32_t staticAttackChance = 95;
int32_t runAwayHealth = 0;

About the spellings it's even more different in other instances

staticattack -> staticAttackChance 
runonhealth -> runAwayHealth
summonable -> isSummonable
...

ignoresSpawnBlock is perfectly in line with how other methods are named

ignores...
is...
can...

[DSpeichert]

ignoresSpawnBlock => ignores Spawn Block

ignorespawnblock => ignore spawn block

The missing s looks like a typo, and if it's not a typo, it's an unnecessary difference. I know other attributes differ in naming between XML and C++ but there's no reason for them to be different here other than to confuse the reader.

[marmichalski]

Contributing to this project is worse than walking on shattered glass. Even when something gets approved, after wave of nonsense/offtopic/useless comments, it gets stalled forever. Truly the most demotivating project I have ever contributed to.

[joseluis2g]

yeah because trying to correct a typo is the worst thing you can do

[marmichalski]

yeah because trying to correct a typo is the worst thing you can do

This is not a typo and this is not about this SINGLE PR.

[nekiro]

Contributing to this project is worse than walking on shattered glass. Even when something gets approved, after wave of nonsense/offtopic/useless comments, it gets stalled forever. Truly the most demotivating project I have ever contributed to.

Yep and your attitude isn't helping either.