The only way to do that is to have a complete copy of Holodeck running somewhere that they can test on. They probably don't have the spare server space or blades to run another version of Holodeck. I know people say this all the time, but after having worked in the IT field, it is near impossible to test anything on a production server and you will are pretty much guaranteed to have bugs and errors.
If you actually read Rephics post it might help. He said that on holodeck they use an auto-republish program, but in testing they did it manually. Heres a bright idea: actually test the program you are going to use before you use it :rolleyes:
If you actually read Rephics post it might help. He said that on holodeck they use an auto-republish program, but in testing they did it manually. Heres a bright idea: actually test the program you are going to use before you use it :rolleyes:
We did do a mass republish test on all of the holodeck projects, but due to the way that project data is split between the shard's database and the patch system, that process did its internal validation using slightly different code than the actual republish on holodeck. If is a major priority going forward to make the automated tests identical to the real republish that will happen on holodeck so that these surprises don't recur.
We did do a mass republish test on all of the holodeck projects, but due to the way that project data is split between the shard's database and the patch system, that process did its internal validation using slightly different code than the actual republish on holodeck. If is a major priority going forward to make the automated tests identical to the real republish that will happen on holodeck so that these surprises don't recur.
I'm glad to see that the lesson has been learned. There's no way to know how the code you're actually going to use will work...if you don't actually USE that same code during the test. Approximations just don't cut it when changing even one variable or one argument has the potential to cause vastly different results.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Also, to rehpic: I will at least say as someone who works in customer service, it takes guts to come out before customers and own up to a major mistake, especially to put one's name to it. That goes a long way in my book.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Rehpic, I backed my missions up prior to the Foundry going down. Today I pulled my script up on Tribble and no problems. Aren't we using the same 0.8 beta? I apologize in advance for the lengthy post.
Here is a snippet of my mission prior to the Foundry 0.5 beta shutdown;
{
Namespace Holodeck_Ugc_69871_082d16a3
Project
{
Name Holodeck_Ugc_69871_082d16a3:Holodeck_Ugc_69871_082d16a3
AccountName sandukutupu
creationTime 393650061
PublicName "The Rights of the Many"
FromContainer 1
Description <&A planet has been discovered to have civilization of hunters. They have pre-warp technology, so the Federation has placed an anthropological team inside a "duck blind" as they call it. However we know they plan to covertly mine the rich deposits of dilithium ore from the planet. We cannot allow the Federation to plant a foothold on this world. We must defend the rights of the many who inhabit our worlds.&>
Notes "A serious political KDF mission. In hope to promote more KDF players."
Language ENGLISH
Mission
{
Name Holodeck_Ugc_69871_082d16a3:Mission
GrantBlock
{
PromptBody <&Captain [LastName] as you may have heard. A boarder planet has been discovered to have civilization of hunters. The fourth planet in the system is an L class world with a primative industrial culture known as the Tl'gra Kl'ee Hw'hoo. \n\nRecently the Federation set up what they claim to be a study of these people. Normally such matters would not concern us. However there are rich deposits of dilithium ore on this planet and we know the Federation is after the ore. Prove it and show the Tl'gra Kl'ee Hw'hoo the true Federation.\n\n[MissionInfo]Set your course for Alhena System in the Eta Eridani Sector. Qapla'[/MissionInfo]&>
PromptCostume Klingon_Commander_Swordmaster_F_01
}
This is the same mission I just plugged in today running on Tribble under 0.8 beta;
{
Namespace Tribble_ugc_1444_5c263f1c
Project
{
Name Tribble_Ugc_1444_5c263f1c:Tribble_Ugc_1444_5c263f1c
AccountName sandukutupu
creationTime 396659929
FromContainer 1
PublicName "The Rights of the Many"
Description <&A planet has been discovered to have civilization of hunters. They have pre-warp technology, so the Federation has placed an anthropological team inside a "duck blind" as they call it. However we know they plan to covertly mine the rich deposits of dilithium ore from the planet. We cannot allow the Federation to plant a foothold on this world. We must defend the rights of the many who inhabit our worlds.&>
Notes <&Notes "A serious political KDF mission. In hope to promote more KDF players."&>
Language ENGLISH
GrantBlock
{
PromptBody <&Captain [LastName] as you may have heard. A boarder planet has been discovered to have civilization of hunters. The fourth planet in the system is an L class world with a primative industrial culture known as the Tl'gra Kl'ee Hw'hoo. \n\nRecently the Federation set up what they claim to be a study of these people. Normally such matters would not concern us. However there are rich deposits of dilithium ore on this planet and we know the Federation is after the ore. Prove it and show the Tl'gra Kl'ee Hw'hoo the true Federation.\n\n[MissionInfo]Set your course for Alhena System in the Eta Eridani Sector. Qapla'[/MissionInfo]&>
PromptCostume Klingon_Commander_Swordmaster_F_01
}
They look the same to me, why isn't Cryptic asking their contributors for assistance? This was and still is a "community project". I am no expert, just a house wife with time.
For when the Foundry comes back online--how did you get that script?
BTW, only rehpic can answer this, but I'm thinking that while the script output to you may be identical, what RUNS it is no longer identical, so the same thing can in some circumstances yield different results to what it used to. Someone correct me on that if I'm wrong...
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Also, the version of Tribble (which is still up) hasn't been fixed either. There are still a bunch of missing options that used to be there, but are now gone.
Since I recently took over the automated build process and installer at my work place - Deployment is a b*tch.
The irony is that we use a home built script that goes out into client directories and pulls upgraded files via svn, runs the upgrade and moves on to the next client.
We did do a mass republish test on all of the holodeck projects, but due to the way that project data is split between the shard's database and the patch system, that process did its internal validation using slightly different code than the actual republish on holodeck. If is a major priority going forward to make the automated tests identical to the real republish that will happen on holodeck so that these surprises don't recur.
Dude, seriously? Why wasnt it ALWAYS a priority to use identical testing procedures? Its like you dont even care about getting it right until it breaks and you look bad. Then all of a sudden its a priority to do it right next time.
Looks like today's patch was not the return of the Foundry, however it might be a step toward that. Still it's disappointing to go without for the third weekend in a row.
Thanks for the updates! Take your time with it and get it right. I'd rather have it not come back for two more weeks but virtually error free than have it come back tomorrow with a ton of bugs and broken missions.
Thanks for the updates! Take your time with it and get it right. I'd rather have it not come back for two more weeks but virtually error free than have it come back tomorrow with a ton of bugs and broken missions.
I agree wholeheartedly. The patch may not have enabled the searching of missions, but at least the republishing of the missions is complete.
It's definitely a step in the right direction and I would be happy to wait as long as it took for a bug-free (or a close to bug-free) Foundry than try to make new missions and have something mess up. :cool:
Im Sorry U Wait Untill Now To Tell Us This? Every Player In The Game Is Pissed Of With U Ppl Cause U Cant Even Keep Your Own TRIBBLE Togethere U Guys Rly Droped The Ball On This One
ya im a red shirt so what im a master at being cannon fodder so what?:cool:
Im Sorry U Wait Untill Now To Tell Us This? Every Player In The Game Is Pissed Of With U Ppl Cause U Cant Even Keep Your Own TRIBBLE Togethere U Guys Rly Droped The Ball On This One
They would maybe respond to this, if there were decent punctuation and understandable English.
Thanks for the updates! Take your time with it and get it right. I'd rather have it not come back for two more weeks but virtually error free than have it come back tomorrow with a ton of bugs and broken missions.
Of course we'd rather have it working than broken; that is a bone-headedly obvious statement. But that doesnt change the fact that we are only in this position because of their terrible testing procedures, which they completely deserve to be called out on.
I agree wholeheartedly. The patch may not have enabled the searching of missions, but at least the republishing of the missions is complete.
When are you going to learn to quit making things up? They NEVER said that the republishing was complete. This is about the 3rd time you have completely made something up in this thread, and its starting to look like intentional lying.
When are you going to learn to quit making things up? They NEVER said that the republishing was complete. This is about the 3rd time you have completely made something up in this thread, and its starting to look like intentional lying.
Okay, the first time I'd mentioned that the missions were up; I was wrong about that and I apologized.
The second time I'm drawing a blank, I'll admit, so if you could let me know what I said, I'd appreciate it.
The third time was that I'd mentioned the republising was complete; I was, again, wrong about that. For a moment, I'd gotten confused and said it was complete instead of saying they had resolved several issues with the republishing of the missions.
There is a huge difference between "making something up" and being mistaken. I've admitted to the first and the third mistake (and, once you tell me the second error I've made, I'll admit I was wrong about that as well), but that's really all I can do. If you don't accept my apology, that's fine, but I'm not going to continue apologizing for something that I've already admitted that I was wrong about.
Okay, the first time I'd mentioned that the missions were up; I was wrong about that and I apologized.
The second time I'm drawing a blank, I'll admit, so if you could let me know what I said, I'd appreciate it.
The third time was that I'd mentioned the republising was complete; I was, again, wrong about that. For a moment, I'd gotten confused and said it was complete instead of saying they had resolved several issues with the republishing of the missions.
There is a huge difference between "making something up" and being mistaken. I've admitted to the first and the third mistake (and, once you tell me the second error I've made, I'll admit I was wrong about that as well), but that's really all I can do. If you don't accept my apology, that's fine, but I'm not going to continue apologizing for something that I've already admitted that I was wrong about.
It's cool by me batman, seems to me like you just jumped the gun a bit out of eagerness to have the Foundry back. I sympathize. Just keep a tighter lid on it next time
@ jacksparrow: yeah he was wrong, but dude, chill. It's not like he's the first person to throw around incorrect info on this forum. Man if I had a Zen for every incorrect statement made here I'd have complete nirvana, or at least a couple of fleet modules.
It's cool by me batman, seems to me like you just jumped the gun a bit out of eagerness to have the Foundry back. I sympathize. Just keep a tighter lid on it next time
Aww, thanks for understanding, you guys. I guess, yeah, I just got overeager at seeing what could be the slightest hint of progress with the Foundry; since I've read all the awesome things they've planned to add to it, I've been, again, overeager to see it switched back on. So when I saw the "Community Authored" tab there, I jumped the gun without investigating.
I definitely won't be doing that again; from now on, I'll leave the reporting to the professionals. hehe (i.e. the devs) That way I don't make a mistake like that again.
Thanks for the cookie, too, lars81482! It looks yummy! (well, in my mind, it does...hehe)
Comments
If you actually read Rephics post it might help. He said that on holodeck they use an auto-republish program, but in testing they did it manually. Heres a bright idea: actually test the program you are going to use before you use it :rolleyes:
We did do a mass republish test on all of the holodeck projects, but due to the way that project data is split between the shard's database and the patch system, that process did its internal validation using slightly different code than the actual republish on holodeck. If is a major priority going forward to make the automated tests identical to the real republish that will happen on holodeck so that these surprises don't recur.
I'm glad to see that the lesson has been learned. There's no way to know how the code you're actually going to use will work...if you don't actually USE that same code during the test. Approximations just don't cut it when changing even one variable or one argument has the potential to cause vastly different results.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Here is a snippet of my mission prior to the Foundry 0.5 beta shutdown;
This is the same mission I just plugged in today running on Tribble under 0.8 beta;
They look the same to me, why isn't Cryptic asking their contributors for assistance? This was and still is a "community project". I am no expert, just a house wife with time.
INQUISITOR CRUSHER
Director of Marketing
ELITE FORCES COMMAND
BTW, only rehpic can answer this, but I'm thinking that while the script output to you may be identical, what RUNS it is no longer identical, so the same thing can in some circumstances yield different results to what it used to. Someone correct me on that if I'm wrong...
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
What makes me chuckle is they still show up the "Foundry Mission Special" in the hourly specials.
Mustrum "I used to say it's not an event, it's a process, but the above describes it better" Ridcully
and the created missions still can't be searched.
Maybe it's just me (though I don't think it would be in this case. lol).
The irony is that we use a home built script that goes out into client directories and pulls upgraded files via svn, runs the upgrade and moves on to the next client.
I love it
Dude, seriously? Why wasnt it ALWAYS a priority to use identical testing procedures? Its like you dont even care about getting it right until it breaks and you look bad. Then all of a sudden its a priority to do it right next time.
I agree wholeheartedly.
It's definitely a step in the right direction and I would be happy to wait as long as it took for a bug-free (or a close to bug-free) Foundry than try to make new missions and have something mess up. :cool:
They would maybe respond to this, if there were decent punctuation and understandable English.
Of course we'd rather have it working than broken; that is a bone-headedly obvious statement. But that doesnt change the fact that we are only in this position because of their terrible testing procedures, which they completely deserve to be called out on.
When are you going to learn to quit making things up? They NEVER said that the republishing was complete. This is about the 3rd time you have completely made something up in this thread, and its starting to look like intentional lying.
Okay, the first time I'd mentioned that the missions were up; I was wrong about that and I apologized.
The second time I'm drawing a blank, I'll admit, so if you could let me know what I said, I'd appreciate it.
The third time was that I'd mentioned the republising was complete; I was, again, wrong about that. For a moment, I'd gotten confused and said it was complete instead of saying they had resolved several issues with the republishing of the missions.
There is a huge difference between "making something up" and being mistaken. I've admitted to the first and the third mistake (and, once you tell me the second error I've made, I'll admit I was wrong about that as well), but that's really all I can do. If you don't accept my apology, that's fine, but I'm not going to continue apologizing for something that I've already admitted that I was wrong about.
awww apology accepted. here have a cookie
@ jacksparrow: yeah he was wrong, but dude, chill. It's not like he's the first person to throw around incorrect info on this forum. Man if I had a Zen for every incorrect statement made here I'd have complete nirvana, or at least a couple of fleet modules.
Borticus said:
"Foundry Tests went well. I am recommendeding they switch is back on."
Original Handle: @Q400
Join Date: December 2010
Aww, thanks for understanding, you guys.
I definitely won't be doing that again; from now on, I'll leave the reporting to the professionals. hehe (i.e. the devs) That way I don't make a mistake like that again.
Thanks for the cookie, too, lars81482!