Closed RestartFU closed 2 months ago
it would also allow me to remove this hacky feature from my inv menu library
instead of removing the whole check, maybe replace it with this?
return s.armour.Inventory(), true
case protocol.ContainerLevelEntity:
if s.containerOpened.Load() {
b := s.c.World().Block(s.openedPos.Load())
- if _, chest := b.(block.Chest); chest {
+ if _, container := b.(block.Container); container {
return s.openedWindow.Load(), true
} else if _, enderChest := b.(block.EnderChest); enderChest {
return s.openedWindow.Load(), true
}
}
case protocol.ContainerBarrel:
if s.containerOpened.Load() {
Do hoppers not have a different ID entirely like barrels?
Do hoppers not have a different ID entirely like barrels?
yeah but I can change that quite easily with just a simple block check with a packet handler
Do hoppers not have a different ID entirely like barrels?
nope, as you can see here, this is what I did for my hopper PR, and it works just fine
Do hoppers not have a different ID entirely like barrels?
nope, as you can see here, this is what I did for my hopper PR, and it works just fine
it is true that the containertype is different, but I could fix this myself on my side, anyway, this is about the redundant assert checks, I don't think it matters if hoppers have a different ID or not
bumping this rq because I kinda need this atm, I want to implement hoppers externally. I could still do it with very hacky stuff, but I'd rather just get this merged instead