[FeatureRequest] :LAST[mod] pass that runs right before :FINAL

Question

[FeatureRequest] :LAST[mod] pass that runs right before :FINAL

Sigma88 opened this issue 7 years ago · 17 comments

Sigma88 commented 7 years ago

I was going to ask for a new pass specifier that ran just before :FINAL

but then I thought, would it be possible to allow both a normal pass specifier and :FINAL to be used?

with the effect that:

firstly, all pass specifiers without :FINAL are run following standard rules
then, all the pass specifiers with :FINAL are run alphabetically
finally, all patches that have only :FINAL are run

this will not change how current patches are applied, but open up a second pass of patches.

this would remove the need of using :FOR[zzzzzzMyMod] and should be pretty easy to implement into the current code

Sigma88 commented 5 years ago

Thanks!

Answer 1 · 2018-02-12T01:12:08.000Z

I don't mind taking a shot at it myself if you like the idea but don't want to write it yourself

Answer 2 · 2018-02-12T01:42:29.000Z

What about :FINAL[myMod]

Answer 3 · 2018-02-12T06:45:36.000Z

Yeah that works fine for me if it's easier to implement 👍

Answer 4 · 2018-02-12T19:30:44.000Z

As long as we don't start a race to the FINALer modifier I am fine with it.

Answer 5 · 2018-02-12T21:15:15.000Z

I only proposed it because people are already running at the most Zful mod :D

if you feel like this would not add anything to the mod I'm fine with not getting this feature

Answer 6 · 2018-02-12T21:17:51.000Z

Now that I think about this a bit it would probably make sense to name it something else to avoid confusion. Maybe :CLEANUP[xxx] or :LAST[xxx]

Answer 7 · 2018-02-12T21:26:27.000Z

my initial idea was :LAST so that works well for me 👍

Answer 8 · 2018-02-12T22:02:22.000Z

Yes, LAST may lower the risk of confusion

Answer 9 · 2018-02-13T10:41:57.000Z

in your idea, :LAST[XXX] would not be integrated into the :FOR system?

it would just be a simple alphabetical ordering right?

Answer 10 · 2018-02-13T17:17:27.000Z

All patches marked :LAST[xxx] would run right before the :FINAL pass, in alphabetical order.

Answer 11 · 2018-04-06T06:05:59.000Z

Oh, one more thing, should :LAST[xxx] act like :BEFORE[xxx] and :AFTER[xxx] in that it will only run if mod xxx is present? Leaning toward yes, but wanted to get some input.

Answer 12 · 2018-04-06T07:42:51.000Z

no I think it should be analogue to :FOR so that people can use it instead of :FOR[zzzzzzwhatever]

but it shouldn't add a mod definition. so if I do :LAST[SigmaBinary] the patch will apply regardless of SigmaBinary being installed, but if there is no :FOR[SigmaBinary] or no "SigmaBinary.dll" other patches using ":NEEDS[SigmaBinary]" will still fail

Answer 13 · 2018-11-09T20:44:21.000Z

Hi guys, I've been out of the loop for a while, is there any news on this?

if you need help testing/coding feel free to let me know

Answer 14 · 2018-11-09T21:38:48.000Z

I did some work on it, then backed up to do some refactoring that would make it simpler. I can probably go back and re-work that now that the refactoring is done.

Answer 15 · 2019-08-06T23:26:24.000Z

This is done

Answer 16 · 2020-05-10T17:24:33.000Z

I was looking for documentation on this feature and this exchange is sufficient, but took some digging to find; mostly because "last" is such a poor search term. The patch ordering wiki page acknowledges the LAST pass but doesn't describe that it is analogous to the FOR pass. I'd be happy to write in an update for the page, but don't want to speak imprecisely about code I didn't write if the convention is that contributors write the doc.