We had previously assumed that achievement bit was a bitmask, but it is an index.
This PR fixes this misconception and puts effort to prevent it from occuring again by
Renaming the proto filed to bit_index
Adding an xml field option of AchievementBitIndex as an alternative to AchievementBit
Removing or renaming anything that used achievement bitmask
This PR will have wonky diffs, the best way to review this is to review it one commit at a time. The first commit is the real diff, the second commit is just renaming files.
Additionally the protobin diffs are going to be very strange. This is for two reasons
The proto diff code does not use the most up-to-date version of the protodef because it runs on the branch we are trying to merge into instead of the branch we are trying to merge
There seems to also be a bug with some of the negative fixed32 numbers where textproto is interpreting them as unsigned 64 bit numbers
I committed a cardinal sin of re-indexing the proto fields. 16 used to be achievement bit, but now it is achievement. 17 used to be achievement but is now achievement_bit
That cardinal sin is fine because we still have not released this proto. Anyone who is using it already should be ready to suffer the consequences of it changing like this.
We had previously assumed that achievement bit was a bitmask, but it is an index. This PR fixes this misconception and puts effort to prevent it from occuring again by
AchievementBitIndexas an alternative toAchievementBitachievement bitmaskThis PR will have wonky diffs, the best way to review this is to review it one commit at a time. The first commit is the real diff, the second commit is just renaming files.
Additionally the protobin diffs are going to be very strange. This is for two reasons