a +3 ring (on left hand) - bug?

[bcode]

While attempting to play blindfolded (without really
succeeding) I found a ring which turned out to be a +3
ring of gain strength. However, it was only displayed
as "p - a +3 ring (on left hand)" while comparing my
attribute values showed that it raised my strength.

Looking at the discoveries page, I saw that this indeed
identified rings of gain strength, but the ring (which
I still hadn't seen) wasn't marked as such.

This means the ring _type_ was identified (and the
enchantment/charges of the ring itself), but not the
individual object which was used to discover the type.

In addition, it means that the ring appearance
(moonstone in this case, I think) was revealed as could
be seen on the discoveries page and by identifying any
seen moonstone rings as gain strength while I had never
_seen_ any moonstone ring before.

Could this be a bug?

[Pat Rankin]

This is entry C343-347 on the known bugs page.

[bcode]

Pat Rankin <r.pat....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 25, 11:37 am, bcode <betac...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

[...]

>> Looking at the discoveries page, I saw that this indeed
>> identified rings of gain strength, but the ring (which
>> I still hadn't seen) wasn't marked as such.
>>
>> This means the ring _type_ was identified (and the
>> enchantment/charges of the ring itself), but not the
>> individual object which was used to discover the type.
>>
>> In addition, it means that the ring appearance
>> (moonstone in this case, I think) was revealed as could
>> be seen on the discoveries page and by identifying any
>> seen moonstone rings as gain strength while I had never
>> _seen_ any moonstone ring before.
>>
>> Could this be a bug?
>
> This is entry C343-347 on the known bugs page.

| C343-347 Fixed Picking up and wearing an unknown ring
| while blind sometimes gives out too much information.

Actually this can apply to wands, too; finding, for example, a
wand of magic missile while blind and zapping it will identify
all wands of magic missile and reveal their appearance (via the
discoveries page), even though the zapped wand is still considered
unseen.

Wizard mode testing seems to suggest it does _not_ apply to potions,
though. I don't know if it would apply to scrolls, but this doesn't
really matter as you can't read them without knowing their
appearance anyway.

[Patric Mueller]

Pat Rankin <r.pat....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is entry C343-347 on the known bugs page.

C343-347 Fixed Picking up and wearing an unknown ring while
blind sometimes gives out too much information.

But it also gives not enough information. The character should know
that a ring of strength is worn even though it doesn't know the
appearance of the ring.

How does the "Fixed" solution look like? I'm not even sure if vanilla
NetHack can represent the desired solution (identify the ring but
don't add it to the discovery list). Or is there also a bug in the
involved name code as "a +3 ring" hints at?

Bye
Patric

--
NetHack-De: NetHack auf Deutsch - http://nethack-de.sf.net/

UnNetHack: http://apps.sf.net/trac/unnethack/

[Jonadab the Unsightly One]

On Dec 29, 5:26 am, Patric Mueller <bh...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> How does the "Fixed" solution look like?

According to the info at the bottom of the bug list, "fixed"
means the bug will be fixed in the next bugfix release
(presumably, 3.4.4); whereas, "Fixed" means it will be
fixed in a subsequent release. (I guess this means the
dev team have a 3.4.x code branch as well as the main
trunk on which longer-term development is done.)

Finding out the actual details of either kind of fix
would presumably require access to the code that the
dev team has produced thus far, or else a direct
conversation with someone on the dev team.

(Most open-source projects make their development
code available in some kind of public repository, but
to my knowledge the nethack dev team does not.)

However, based on the wording of the bug title,
I would guess that the fix consists of giving out
less information, not more.

Speaking of being blinded, one of the conduct-
related enhancements I think would be cool would
be an option that could be entered either on the
command line or in .nethackrc to declare up
front, before you start the game, what conducts
you intend to attempt. In the case of certain
conducts, this would provide you with suitable
initial inventory -- e.g., if you declare that you
intend to attempt zen conduct, you would start
with a cursed blindfold, regardless of whether
you select a role that would ordinarily get a
chance at a blindfold or not. When you finish
the game, it would list the conducts you
declared and note whether you succeeded
in completing them or not.

[Patric Mueller]

Jonadab the Unsightly One <jonadab.the...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...] (I guess this means the dev team have a 3.4.x code branch as

> well as the main trunk on which longer-term development is done.)

Unlikely from what we know from postings in here and direct answers to
bug reports that people get. Nothing specific is known of course but
if they had a bugfix code branch why haven't we seen a bugfix release?

I presume that a NetHack release is quite involved (with all the
different ports etc.) but after 8 years they could also just have made
a source code release.

Even a source code only release would have helped public server admins
or us variant developers a lot. For example as we have seen in this
thread that the bug descriptions on nethack.org are often not good
enough to reproduce the bugs.

On the wiki there are some comments to the bugs that try to clarify
what the bug really is:
http://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Bugs_in_NetHack_3.4.3

> Finding out the actual details of either kind of fix would
> presumably require access to the code that the dev team has produced
> thus far, or else a direct conversation with someone on the dev
> team.

You don't seem to know that Pat *is* "someone on the dev team".

> Speaking of being blinded, one of the conduct- related enhancements
> I think would be cool would be an option that could be entered
> either on the command line or in .nethackrc to declare up front,
> before you start the game, what conducts you intend to attempt. In
> the case of certain conducts, this would provide you with suitable
> initial inventory -- e.g., if you declare that you intend to attempt
> zen conduct, you would start with a cursed blindfold, regardless of
> whether you select a role that would ordinarily get a chance at a
> blindfold or not. When you finish the game, it would list the
> conducts you declared and note whether you succeeded in completing
> them or not.

The extended conducts patch by Andreas Dorn does this.
http://bilious.alt.org/?36

I also incorporated this patch into UnNetHack.

[Jonadab the Unsightly One]

On Dec 30, 6:48 am, Patric Mueller <bh...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> > [...] (I guess this means the dev team have a 3.4.x code branch as
> > well as the main trunk on which longer-term development is done.)
>
> Unlikely from what we know from postings in here and direct answers to
> bug reports that people get. Nothing specific is known of course but
> if they had a bugfix code branch why haven't we seen a bugfix release?

Probably because they have just a couple more things they want
to do to it first... and round tuits are in short supply. (I know
how
this is; you keep thinking you're going to get back to it, and then
other things draw your attention away again, and soon months
have gone by and you didn't even notice.)

> I presume that a NetHack release is quite involved (with all the
> different ports etc.) but after 8 years they could also just have made
> a source code release.

Many open-source projects operate primarily on a source release
system, with various third parties chipping in subsequently to
create binary packages for various platforms.

> Even a source code only release would have helped
> public server admins or us variant developers a lot.

Generally speaking, if you release the source, and it's
in anything resembling the kind of condition that allows
it to be compiled by people who know what they're doing,
binary builds will automagically appear, usually quite soon.

(This assumes it's a program that people are interested
in having, of course. If you release the source code for
your totally awesome markov chain generator that you
wrote over a long weekend, it may well be that nobody
will ever bother downloading it, much less compiling it
and releasing binary packages. Nethack, however,
shouldn't have a problem.)

> For example as we have seen in this thread that the
> bug descriptions on nethack.org are often not good
> enough to reproduce the bugs.

True. It would appear that the developers are trying
not to "spoil" the already released version by telling
everyone how to exploit or otherwise reproduce every
single bug they know about. This is understandable,
although it's different from how a lot of open-source
projects work these days (particularly since the rather
notable value of bugzilla.mozilla.org became obvious,
somewhere around the turn of the century).

> > Finding out the actual details of either kind of fix would
> > presumably require access to the code that the dev team
> > has produced thus far, or else a direct conversation with
> > someone on the dev team.
>
> You don't seem to know that Pat *is*
> "someone on the dev team".

Oh. No, I was not aware of that.

[Janis Papanagnou]

And it seems that Pat is the only one who's active (sort of).

Janis