TREATIES has issues:
* Treaties can cover attack, assault, paradrop, board, lboard, fire,
build (s|p|l|n) and enlist, but not bomb, launch, torpedo and
enlistment centers.
* Usability is very poor. While a treaty is in effect, every player
action that violates a treaty condition triggers a prompt like this:
This action is in contravention of treaty #0 (with Curmudgeon)
Do you wish to go ahead anyway? [yn]
If you decline, the action is not executed. If you accept, it is.
In both cases, your decision is reported in the news.
You cannot get rid of these prompts until the treaty expires.
* Virtually nobody uses them.
* Virtually unused code is buggy code. There is at least one race
condition: multifire() reads the firing sector, ship or land unit
before the treaty prompt, and writes it back after, triggering a
generation oops. Any updates made by other threads while trechk()
waits for input are wiped out, triggering a seqno mismatch oops.
* The treaty prompts could confuse smart clients that aren't prepared
for them. WinACE isn't, but is reported to work anyway at least
common usage. Ron Koenderink (the WinACE maintainer) suspects there
could be a few situations where it will fail.
This feature is not earning its keep. Remove it. Drop command
treaty, consider treaty, offer treaty, xdump treaty, reject treaties.
Output of accept changed, obviously.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Two bugs. First, multifire() checks the condition only for surface
ships, not for submarines. Second, multifire() neglects to write back
the ship after retreating it. The player is told the ship retreats,
but it actually stays where it is.
Broken since retreat was added in Chainsaw. Previous fixes (commit
8065fe8, v4.3.1 and commit de2651e, v4.3.19) "fixed" only the
bulletin.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
This was a lame attempt at limiting the ripple effect of adding /
removing commands. Better means are now available, so drop it.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
Tests need repeatable pseudorandom numbers to yield repeatable
results. We seed the pseudorandom number generator with a fixed value
(emp_server -R) to make it produce the same sequence of numbers every
time. But whenever code exercised by a test is changed to consume
fewer or more of them, all subsequent users get different numbers
regardless. The ensuing test result changes are extremely tedious to
review.
To address this problem, reseed the PRNG with the count of commands
right before executing a command when running_test_suite is on. This
way, the effect of perturbing the PRN sequence lasts only until the
next command.
Note that the next command could be another player's. Doesn't matter.
Adding or removing commands now upsets the PRN sequence even for
commands that don't consume PRNs. The next commit will take care of
that.
Perturbs test results across the board. Hopefully, that'll happen
much less frequently now.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
The other test output files have fixed names, and having just one with
a name that varies with the test name complicates things with no gain.
Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@pond.sub.org>
