Map Parcel Extension [Fantasy Grounds Unity]

[SilentRuin]

This extension looks really nice, adding nice flavour Sadly I cannot run any game at the moment, so, I cannot try it out, but I will certainly do (but for 3.5e then :P No worries, I won't report bugs which are in 3.5e but no 5e )

All the specialized NPC or other stuff directly related to 5E is guarded in both the .xml and .lua code to only come into effect for the 5E ruleset - so if there are bugs in one of the superficially tested rulesets I listed - for sure mention it. Should all be the exact same code except where things are unavailable for non 5E rulesets.

The only reason I did not do 2E (all rulesets available to me as part of ultimate download) is because they had already gone a different path for implementing NPC inventories and I did not want to spend time figuring out any duplicate sets of coding to fully support just that one ruleset. For sure I went a different path where I did not have to duplicate branches of code.

In any case, I'm fine with bugs. If I don't think they are a bug or a natural limitation in my ability to test on my setup in a given ruleset, I'm not shy about stating it Nor am I worried about looking bad if I do that. I'd much prefer someone telling me something than not - and if they can actually give me a duplicatable scenario in my setup (raw FGU ultimate license without any extensions or with the extensions in my signature) I will absolutely look into it.

[vaughnlannister]

V1.2 updated - wanted to have ability to easily distribute dead character/npc inventory via partysheet or a map parcel. Don't use it if you don't actually need it as it will MOVE not COPY the entire inventory of a character/npc into the partysheet or parcel you drop the combat tracker or sheet link into. Host is only one that can do it.

Nice addition thanks for adding !!! Certainly handy when an NPC or PC gets send on, no more dragging one by one items over to the Party Sheet Inventory, Wonderful !!!

[mattekure]

Small bug on the NPCs inventory tab. The equipment field allows you to drop items into it even if the record is locked, or if the NPC is from a locked module like the Monster Manual. In these instances, it is not possible to delete the added item and the module is not marked as edited, so you cant revert changes.
EDIT* I did just find you can remove the items from the locked record by moving them to the party sheet which removes them from the NPC record.

[SilentRuin]

Small bug on the NPCs inventory tab. The equipment field allows you to drop items into it even if the record is locked, or if the NPC is from a locked module like the Monster Manual. In these instances, it is not possible to delete the added item and the module is not marked as edited, so you cant revert changes.
EDIT* I did just find you can remove the items from the locked record by moving them to the party sheet which removes them from the NPC record.

I'm going to have to check this out because inventory is NOT going to respect the locked tab on purpose for NPCs. But I'll see if its what I consider a bug. For sure for a player shared NPC (assuming you have polymorphism to allow the ownership of the shared NPC) it will ALWAYS be locked and inventory will still be accessible as its the combat tracker inventory record. However, if this is NOT in the combat tracker - then you might have an issue. I'll look at it. But inventory will not be respecting the lock icon by its very nature in order to operate like a charsheet would (which has no lock icon for inventory).

[SilentRuin]

Small bug...

Bizarre - I don't even see it in the db.xml anywhere - I did not think host had access to a read only module so I'm not sure where it is even being stored. I need to think about how to discriminate here if I'm to prevent this from adding into a pure module entry. For sure I WANT this behavior from a fully owned and shared NPC (via polymorphism extension) where it actually puts that inventory record in the combat tracker entry regardless of the lock status (you can delete it there with right mouse). I also want it to be modifiable in the <npc> copy of a module db entry regardless of the lock status (you can delete it there with the right mouse). In fact, if I ever fully share the NPC it is part of the <npc> db entries. So its exactly the way I want it to be.

But as you point out - if the host is messing with pure data module entry and drops something into it - it does not give you the remove right mouse option. I actually would have thought the attempt would have failed but evidently I was wrong. Guess because the host owns everything.

As you point out it can only be removed by moving it to a parcel or the partysheet inventories (with the latest version of map parcel - as I move those myself and remove them from where I retrieved them from).

I had another part of this code guard against module references for certain operations in the last version update I did - so I suppose I could do that here?

I'll have to look. For ABSOLUTE NO QUALMS ABOUT IT in all other cases inventory will ignore the lock status as its not part of that game. Nor do I want it to be. Its purely dynamic data at all times to host and player (if player has fully shared NPC). A player will not be able to modify the inventory if it does not have the fully shared NPC option of polymorphism active for sure - but otherwise - it will absolutely ignore the lock. Only lack of access to the entire record will block it.

Which I would have thought was the case in a read only module. I'll have to look into this odd case.

[mattekure]

Any changes to a module entry will not be written to db.xml. Instead, there is a new xml file written in the campaign/moduledb/<modulename>.xml file. It might be stored in there?

*EDIT* Yes, I found a "DD MM Monster Manual.xml" file in the moduledb folder that shows the changes to the locked npc entry.

[SilentRuin]

Any changes to a module entry will not be written to db.xml. Instead, there is a new xml file written in the campaign/moduledb/<modulename>.xml file. It might be stored in there?

*EDIT* Yes, I found a "DD MM Monster Manual.xml" file in the moduledb folder that shows the changes to the locked npc entry.

Yet if I exit and come back up its not really there - even though it is in that xml. AND if I put something else in there - it replaces that xml with that one record - and is gone again if I come back up and down. Must be a pure lua FG side effect of writing to a record you can't write to?

If I copy the bogus inventory read only module NPC - it creates a new <npc> record which is completely correct.

I think I should probably try to prevent it even though it appears harmless to avoid confusion - agreed?

The idea of having the inventory in a read only module though is to support a module with an inventory - so that stays. Just talking about removing the ability to drop things into it.

[mattekure]

Yeah. I feel like if you are going to be customizing npcs like adding inventory, weapons, etc, it should be copied to the campaign first so its a local record.

It doesnt appear to hurt anything since you can empty it to the party sheet, it just may cause confusion if they think something is edited and the changes dont stick when you restart FG. I know with my shops extension I disabled it if the record was loaded from a module and instead required that any customization be done to a copy.

[SilentRuin]

Yeah. I feel like if you are going to be customizing npcs like adding inventory, weapons, etc, it should be copied to the campaign first so its a local record.

It doesnt appear to hurt anything since you can empty it to the party sheet, it just may cause confusion if they think something is edited and the changes dont stick when you restart FG. I know with my shops extension I disabled it if the record was loaded from a module and instead required that any customization be done to a copy.

Will do same module guard I did on parcels - stay tuned.

[SilentRuin]

Yeah. I feel like if you are going to be customizing npcs like adding inventory, weapons, etc, it should be copied to the campaign first so its a local record.

It doesnt appear to hurt anything since you can empty it to the party sheet, it just may cause confusion if they think something is edited and the changes dont stick when you restart FG. I know with my shops extension I disabled it if the record was loaded from a module and instead required that any customization be done to a copy.

Ok - my only worry here is that I can only have this info to determine what to guard against:

[9/26/2020 12:39:07 PM] databasenode = { reference.npcdata.aboleth@DD MM Monster Manual }
[9/26/2020 12:39:07 PM] dragdata = { type = s'shortcut', desc = s'Item: Abacus', #slots = #1, slot = #1, string = s'', num = #0, diceexpr = {}, shortcut = {reference_equipment:reference.equipmentdata.abacu s@DD PHB Deluxe}, asset = {, instance = }, custom = nil }

And while I feel "mostly" confident that if I have a shortcut - that is an item - targeting a module - I can toss it away for the drop - I'm not 100% sure.

Does this sound like a reasonable assumption? For sure I don't want to break something that actually is supposed to allow some database item to legally drop onto a module record. I can't think of any - but if I'm to guard against this its all I've got. Testing it now - but my tests may not be imagining something I'm not aware of.