Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by Beimeith, Dec 11, 2018.
% Waste would be neat
Specifically my plan is to change the old Healing tab to work like the Player DPS (breakdown) Tab.
There will be 2 sub tabs, one for Healers and one for Healees.
The Healer Tab will give you a per-spell breakdown of the heals the selected healer cast similar to how the DoT breakdown tab works.
The Healee Tab will give you a per-healer breakdown for the heals the selected healee received similar to the DoT breakdown works.
Here is a wonderful mock-up of what the Healer Tab will look like:
The Healee Tab will be very similar, but instead of per-spell it will be per-Healer.
Sweet anticipation! Can't wait. But I will.
Ok, last update for a bit cause I have some other stuff to do for a while.
I moved the healcount column to the left and added the %OH column. This is the percent of how much healing was wasted as an overheal.
I'm just curious, why wouldn't you just code and script it for new log files only? Why make it work with old log files? People should just be happy you are at least putting something out there and if they lose all their old files, then so be it, at least it will work with the way the new system captures information.
I don't keep old log files, I delete mine weekly. The only time I keep them is to compare fights if I have made changes to certain items.
Have you thought about throwing the source up on GitHub? I'm sure there are many of us in the community who would be happy to help write unit tests and clean up code.
I understand how complex the EQ-centric ideas are and that you would need to be the maintainer to verify everything, but it might help spread some of the more mundane work around.
Maybe you don't but I know there are people who keep all their log files.
Your guild leader being the biggest keeper of logs I know.
Maybe you delete yours.... I don't.
It is on GitHub, it's just private.
The reason I don't make it open is because I don't trust people not to do bad things. It would be easy for some not nice person to download the source, add in some bad code to do bad things, compile it and give it to people.
Even if I were to code sign it so the source is verified to come from me, it doesn't matter. The vast majority of people ignore that popup anyway and just click OK.
And I've already said why I intend to keep it compatible. I like it as a comparison tool.
I don't blame you for keeping the source code private. It's the way to go while you're still keeping it up to date. You don't need some rando to add some feature that motivates people to get it, and then they also put a key logger on it.
Hmm, I respect you for trying to keep it compatible, but at the same time, with how DBG is also themselves cleaning up the code in EQ and deleting old code, I wonder how accurate your code will be trying to keep it compatible when you said it yourself that in its current state with how the new code EQ is now working, Gamparse is not working even if people *think* it is.
The other reason I respect you, even more, is that you do this for free, I just feel it would save you a hell of a lot of time, hair pulling and frustration if you just made it work with the new code only, I mean how useful is it really and how accurate was it being compatible when no two parses were ever the same when it was working with the old code?
So, I went ahead and removed the FightList Tab and put that information into the Fight Navigator. It was redundant to have both and now that the FightNav is resizable I don't see a reason to keep the FightList Tab any more. If someone can make a compelling argument I might reconsider, but I kinda doubt it.
To give you an idea what it looks like now:
This is the default startup sizing. You only see the fight number and opponent name but the scrollbar at the bottom lets you know there is more there.
You can also resize it if you want to see everything at once:
Any chance you can release a beta version for testing purposes Beimeith?
There are three issues here I want to be sure are kept very distinct. The first is this comment which actually gets at the whole idea of open software.
Every fiber of my infosec body wants to scream out in anguish at this response. Beimeith has the unfortunate but real concern of binary authenticity. But the idea that "some rando" could sneak in a key logger belies a total lack of understanding of the Free and Libre Open Source Sodtware (FLOSS) process. The whole idea is the code and it's development process is open and thus auditable, verifiable, and reproduceable. Someone putting in a pull/merge request with "extra code" would hopefully stand out and quickly be rejected and publicized. The problem becomes forged distribution of binaries compiled from (unacknowledged) forks; which leads towards the second issue.
Not that he has done so, and great respect for the work done so far by Beimeith, but to illustrate that point: what's to say GamParse as distributed today doesn't include a credit card scraper, key logger, etc? If the source were open you could take a look for yourself.
The second is a concern Beimeith raised that many of us deeply steeped in the Linux and FLOSS community tend to forget about (or at least take for granted( in commodity desktop distribution: binary authenticity. That's a massively longer discussion and I'd urge that opening the source would likely do more good than harm but can respect the distribution concern when most won't be compiling from source themselves or utilizing a "known trusted" distributor.
That all said... if that donate button were to show up in an interim release, code signing certs might be within reach much faster! Which gets back to the third issue: making GamParse better by getting more people involved and lifting some load from a single maintainer. Given your distribution concerns do you have any ideas for resolving them and creating a community of developers or do you really just want to keep this as your project? The latter is perfectly acceptable - you've taken over maintainership and it's yours to do with as you wish!
Between it being open source and completely closed, you've missed the middle ground I've been aiming for.
While the source is closed, there are several other people who have access to it that can verify it if they so choose:
Gam (the original creator)
Rumstil (the owner/operator of Raidloot.com
Zenshai (doesn't anymore but did for a while)
Another guy who was in my guild who's name I forget (doesn't anymore)
and various others over the years have had access.
It's not an all or nothing choice. I've opted for a middle ground as best as I can, and it isn't likely to change soon.
People can believe whatever tinfoil hat conspiracy theory they want, it has zero impact on my decision making.
I will when it's ready.
Also, because I'm a huge troll who likes to cause drama:
With Spiritual Squall:
With no Spiritual Squall:
It's looking good. Quite excited to give it a run when you're all done! Thanks for all the hard work!
I like how a warrior heals more than 3 clerics.
Separate names with a comma.