skill_delunitgroup (status.c) - r16156

Originally posted by [b]malufett[/b]
I can't find any
[CODE]clif_skill_damage(src,target,tick,sd->battle_status.amotion,0,0,1,ud->skillid, ud->skilllv, 5);[/CODE]
@status.c

only at skill.c which has no relation with r16156

[CODE] //Skill failed.
if (ud->skillid == MO_EXTREMITYFIST && sd && !(sc && sc->data[SC_FOGWALL]))
{ //When Asura fails... (except when it fails from Fog of Wall)
//Consume SP/spheres
skill_consume_requirement(sd,ud->skillid, ud->skilllv,1);
status_set_sp(src, 0, 0);
sc = &sd->sc;
if (sc->count)
{ //End states
status_change_end(src, SC_EXPLOSIONSPIRITS, INVALID_TIMER);
status_change_end(src, SC_BLADESTOP, INVALID_TIMER);
}
if (target && target->m == src->m)
{ //Move character to target anyway.
int dx,dy;
dx = target->x - src->x;
dy = target->y - src->y;
if(dx > 0) dx++;
else if(dx < 0) dx--;
if (dy > 0) dy++;
else if(dy < 0) dy--;

if (unit_movepos(src, src->x+dx, src->y+dy, 1, 1))
{ //Display movement + animation.
clif_slide(src,src->x,src->y);
clif_skill_damage(src,target,tick,sd->battle_status.amotion,0,0,1,ud->skillid, ud->skilllv, 5);
}
clif_skill_fail(sd,ud->skillid,USESKILL_FAIL_LEVEL,0);
}
}[/CODE]

Originally posted by [b]MarkZD[/b]
I think the author didn't looked at the right file as there ins't this line at status.c

But I looked at line 8793 and there's a break to a case which has this code:

[CODE]
case SC_BANDING:
{
struct skill_unit_group *group;
if(sce->val4)
{
group = skill_id2group(sce->val4);
sce->val4 = 0;
skill_delunitgroup(group);
}
}
break;
[/CODE]

[b] skill_delunitgroup(group);[/b]
This line makes sense with the report.
There's even no line 8793 with the piece quoted by the author, which makes me think 3 possibilities:
1) He didn't pay attention at all while he copied the piece of source, so it might not be an invalid report.
2) He didn't updated the source correctly.
3) He has some custom source.

But the debug showed that the line he has in 8793 is probably something like the one I posted, so it's the first option and this report isn't invalid by the cause above this post.

Originally posted by [b]malufett[/b]
well..still his report is invalid...and the information he gave is lacking....

Originally posted by [b]Yum[/b]
Royal Guard (Skill: Banding Use)

Use it and be disconnecting and connecting.

Originally posted by [b]malufett[/b]
sorry...can't reproduce,,,

Originally posted by [b]MarkZD[/b]
[quote name='malufett' timestamp='1338222600' post='9716']
well..still his report is invalid...and the information he gave is lacking....
[/quote]

Still invalid?

I think it'd be unable to reproduce as invalid refers to something that is not related to source or something like that, maybe it should be "Unable to reproduce".
And the author should be questioned about custom source and etc before beeing invalided, right? ;D

I reproduced it in 16162, so it probably is affecting 16156 as descripted.

[u]Use banding, log off, relog in disable banding the debug message appears.[/u]

Originally posted by [b]malufett[/b]
ok..I should now update since it is clear for now on how to reproduce it...thnx for reminding...

Originally posted by [b]Ind[/b]
[quote name='MarkZD' timestamp='1338221630' post='9713']
I think the author didn't looked at the right file as there ins't this line at status.cBut I looked at line 8793 and there's a break to a case which has this code:[CODE] case SC_BANDING: { struct skill_unit_group *group; if(sce->val4) { group = skill_id2group(sce->val4); sce->val4 = 0; skill_delunitgroup(group); } } break;[/CODE][b] skill_delunitgroup(group);[/b]This line makes sense with the report.There's even no line 8793 with the piece quoted by the author, which makes me think 3 possibilities:1) He didn't pay attention at all while he copied the piece of source, so it might not be an invalid report.2) He didn't updated the source correctly.3) He has some custom source.But the debug showed that the line he has in 8793 is probably something like the one I posted, so it's the first option and this report isn't invalid by the cause above this post.
[/quote]
makes sense. thank you very much for taking the time to try.

Originally posted by [b]MarkZD[/b]
Fixed in [rev=16188].