search

SaveScum / skyrim-plugin-decoding-project

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/skyrim-plugin-decoding-project
0 stars 0 forks source link

Trying to add a perk condition adds a perk effect instead #124

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Go to any PERK record.
2. Find the "perk conditions" section.
3. Attempt to add a new perk condition.

What is the expected output?
An empty perk condition ready to populate should get generated.

What do you see instead?
An empty perk effect is generated instead.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
TES5Edit 3.0.29, Skyrim

Original issue reported on code.google.com by arthmoor on 9 Mar 2013 at 2:08

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Can't reproduce.
However discovered another bug when adding a new condition, it has empty data.

Original comment by zila...@gmail.com on 9 Mar 2013 at 10:41

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Arthmoor: Can you tell me which plugin and which conditions you were editing ?
On my first test for issue 125 I got a "glitch" thant I could not reproduce 
after. It may have been similar to your issue.

Original comment by HuguesLe...@gmail.com on 9 Mar 2013 at 3:15

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
It was in the USKP. I was trying to add a new condition to one of the Deep 
Wounds perks to correct a conflict between it and Dragonborn.

I can't reproduce the error now, which suggests I was doing something really 
wrong. I hate it when stuff like this happens. I *KNEW* I should have 
screenshot it :P

I am getting the error you have screenshots for in 125 though. The one with the 
"error, expecting x bytes" thing. That went away when I dragged the condition I 
needed over to the field though.

Original comment by arthmoor on 10 Mar 2013 at 10:49

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Er, in the UDBP (dragonborn patch) actually. Ugh. Too many acronyms.

Original comment by arthmoor on 10 Mar 2013 at 10:49

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
arthmoor: Can you reproduce it with 3.0.29 ?

Original comment by HuguesLe...@gmail.com on 19 Mar 2013 at 2:15

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
No I can't. Perhaps it was just an inconsistent subrecords alignment I 
described in issue 125. The first time I encountered it, my initial thought was 
"something wrong here", but it is just how it works actually.

Original comment by zila...@gmail.com on 19 Mar 2013 at 2:55

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I know you asked Arthmoor, but I tried several times to reproduce anything 
weird with 3.0.29.

Original comment by zila...@gmail.com on 19 Mar 2013 at 2:56

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
So you both agree, we can close ?

Original comment by HuguesLe...@gmail.com on 19 Mar 2013 at 3:19

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Let's wait for Arthmoor first :)

Original comment by zila...@gmail.com on 19 Mar 2013 at 3:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Haven't been able to repo it again. Knowing our luck though it'll show up next 
week or something. If it does, I'll grab screenshots. Until then, may as well 
close this.

Original comment by arthmoor on 20 Mar 2013 at 2:40

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Could not be reproduced

Original comment by HuguesLe...@gmail.com on 20 Mar 2013 at 8:29