Miko/baritone
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Make buildSkipBlocks use a wrapper schematic

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
ZacSharp
2024-02-20 21:32:55 +01:00
parent 4144344acd
commit 632e05c4c2
1 changed files with 12 additions and 7 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

19
src/main/java/baritone/process/BuilderProcess.java
View File

@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ import baritone.api.process.PathingCommandType;
import baritone.api.schematic.FillSchematic;
import baritone.api.schematic.ISchematic;
import baritone.api.schematic.IStaticSchematic;
import baritone.api.schematic.MaskSchematic;
import baritone.api.schematic.SubstituteSchematic;
import baritone.api.schematic.format.ISchematicFormat;
import baritone.api.utils.*;
@@ -110,6 +111,14 @@ public final class BuilderProcess extends BaritoneProcessHelper implements IBuil
if (!Baritone.settings().buildSubstitutes.value.isEmpty()) {
this.schematic = new SubstituteSchematic(this.schematic, Baritone.settings().buildSubstitutes.value);
}
// TODO this preserves the old behavior, but maybe we should bake the setting value right here
this.schematic = new MaskSchematic(this.schematic) {
@Override
public boolean partOfMask(int x, int y, int z, BlockState current) {
// partOfMask is only called inside the schematic so desiredState is not null
return !Baritone.settings().buildSkipBlocks.value.contains(this.desiredState(x, y, z, current, null).getBlock());
}
};
int x = origin.getX();
int y = origin.getY();
int z = origin.getZ();
@@ -683,8 +692,7 @@ public final class BuilderProcess extends BaritoneProcessHelper implements IBuil
continue;
}
// this is not in render distance
if (!observedCompleted.contains(BetterBlockPos.longHash(blockX, blockY, blockZ))
&& !Baritone.settings().buildSkipBlocks.value.contains(schematic.desiredState(x, y, z, current, this.approxPlaceable).getBlock())) {
if (!observedCompleted.contains(BetterBlockPos.longHash(blockX, blockY, blockZ))) {
// and we've never seen this position be correct
// therefore mark as incorrect
incorrectPositions.add(new BetterBlockPos(blockX, blockY, blockZ));
@@ -1066,9 +1074,6 @@ public final class BuilderProcess extends BaritoneProcessHelper implements IBuil
if (!(current.getBlock() instanceof AirBlock) && Baritone.settings().buildIgnoreExisting.value && !itemVerify) {
return true;
}
if (Baritone.settings().buildSkipBlocks.value.contains(desired.getBlock()) && !itemVerify) {
return true;
}
if (Baritone.settings().buildValidSubstitutes.value.getOrDefault(desired.getBlock(), Collections.emptyList()).contains(current.getBlock()) && !itemVerify) {
return true;
}
@@ -1112,7 +1117,7 @@ public final class BuilderProcess extends BaritoneProcessHelper implements IBuil
return COST_INF;
}
BlockState sch = getSchematic(x, y, z, current);
if (sch != null && !Baritone.settings().buildSkipBlocks.value.contains(sch.getBlock())) {
if (sch != null) {
// TODO this can return true even when allowPlace is off.... is that an issue?
if (sch.getBlock() instanceof AirBlock) {
// we want this to be air, but they're asking if they can place here
@@ -1146,7 +1151,7 @@ public final class BuilderProcess extends BaritoneProcessHelper implements IBuil
return COST_INF;
}
BlockState sch = getSchematic(x, y, z, current);
if (sch != null && !Baritone.settings().buildSkipBlocks.value.contains(sch.getBlock())) {
if (sch != null) {
if (sch.getBlock() instanceof AirBlock) {
// it should be air
// regardless of current contents, we can break it