search

loot / libloot

A C++ library for accessing LOOT's metadata and sorting functionality.
GNU General Public License v3.0
32 stars 12 forks source link

Version comparison: `2.0.1 == 2.0.1a` is True #7

Closed Freso closed 7 years ago

Freso commented 7 years ago

I was updating version information for the UFO4P in the FO4 masterlist, and wasn't sure how to enter the version, so I played around a bit. It turns out that the version string 2.0.1 evaluates to be the same as 2.0.1a, which is wrong. However, it might be the better option there is, since "2.0.1a" can be used both to say "2.0.1-alpha" (ie., a pre-release to 2.0.1) or "2.0.1 patch A" (ie., a follow-up release to 2.0.1). I'm pretty sure @Arthmoor uses the latter meaning, but I don't see a way LOOT will be able to automatically make this distinction, so maybe this is an unsolvable issue. :/ (Other than maybe urging @Arthmoor and others using such a scheme to do something like "2.0.1.1" instead.)

Maybe the LOOT(-API) docs need to have a note somewhere about this that can be referenced when contacting mod authors?

Ortham commented 7 years ago

(Other than maybe urging @Arthmoor and others using such a scheme to do something like "2.0.1.1" instead.)

Or just 2.0.2...

Anyway, this is an odd issue as LOOT uses Pseudosem for its version comparison, and that's got a test for such a pair of versions (so not unsolvable!). I'll look into it when I get the chance. Does LOOT display the plugin's version correctly?

Freso commented 7 years ago

Yeah. LOOT displays "2.0.1a" perfectly.

I made comparison tests here for my suggested hackish approach for reference: https://github.com/Freso/loot-api/commit/12ded9cbfef5787d8f42af3e5d75a0dd3db2bd46

Ortham commented 7 years ago

As I commented there, I don't think your tests expect the right behaviour, I expect 2.0.1a > 2.0.1. I've never seen letter suffixes used for prereleases in the wild. I added my own tests for that behaviour as you did, and they all pass...

There is some debug logging that may be useful, what does your LOOTAPIDebugLog.txt have?

Arthmoor commented 7 years ago

Just wanted to drop in and say we're far from the only project that uses a/b/c/etc to designate a minor hotfix version. I don't think there's any need to assume that these letters indicate alpha or beta state instead. I personally have never been a big fan of the 4 figure version number.

Ortham commented 7 years ago

Closing this as invalid as I see the expected behaviour:

screenshot from 2017-08-06 17-18-04

(Ignore the inverted colours, something's up with Gnome's window screenshotting...)