11-18-2020, 10:06 AM
Hi,
Ok I finally fixed the bug in our dev version. That will be published with the next release (probably today or tomorrow).
That was a pretty complex bug to understand for a rare case in reality with no link with the neutral pieces, so this is good to detect it and fixed it. Thanks for the report.
Because you move a piece type on another piece of the same type. Then add another piece type on the (last From) location and swap these pieces.
But, when you move a piece type on another of the same piece type, in reality the count should be two. Because the "what" data is the same but you have now 2 pieces of the same type on that site (so the "count" data of that site should be 2). However if the game does not activate the count, the piece at the (to) location has to be removed before to place the new piece (even if that's the same piece type). And to detect the "occupied" sites we have different internal structures in Ludii and for that specific case, the data of that structure was not correct.
Anyway that's now fixed ;)
Thanks for that.
Regards,
Eric
Ok I finally fixed the bug in our dev version. That will be published with the next release (probably today or tomorrow).
That was a pretty complex bug to understand for a rare case in reality with no link with the neutral pieces, so this is good to detect it and fixed it. Thanks for the report.
Because you move a piece type on another piece of the same type. Then add another piece type on the (last From) location and swap these pieces.
But, when you move a piece type on another of the same piece type, in reality the count should be two. Because the "what" data is the same but you have now 2 pieces of the same type on that site (so the "count" data of that site should be 2). However if the game does not activate the count, the piece at the (to) location has to be removed before to place the new piece (even if that's the same piece type). And to detect the "occupied" sites we have different internal structures in Ludii and for that specific case, the data of that structure was not correct.
Anyway that's now fixed ;)
Thanks for that.
Regards,
Eric