Reika's Update Checker

[Pyure]

Anyways, as I have said, the version checker has been redesigned for the next version. It is now a box that appears - one per mod, and only one appears at a time - with the message, and can be clicked to close it at the user's convenience:

I'm unclear on how the version itself is factored in.

If I close a version-check for a version of a mod, say v5c, is it at least gone forever until v5d, or do I have to deal with it every time I load a pack?

If it comes up every time I load a pack, that's a major issue. I have 200 mods in a given pack; if any reasonable fraction of them are using popup forms to warn me about out of date mods, that's incredibly intrusive. And its unfair to assume a single dev gets special treatment to use popups, so its important to assume they all do when gauging intrusiveness.

 

[InfinityRaider]

First off, I'm not here to defend you or the part of the community that follows you or the part of the community that hates you. Many people are aware of the levels of harassment you and perhaps even other modders experience, and namecallers, DDOS'ers, ... the fact that they do these sort of things says enough about them as a person and should not deserve anymore attention.
Now it's obvious that you swim against the current no matter how strong it is to acchieve your creative/intellectual goals or principles (which is something few people are capable of), but don't let genuine feedback get lost in that flow.

 

[Hyperme]

Three, users would need to create a GitHub account, and a poll I conducted on my thread a few months back indicated that less than 5% would be willing, with 95% saying "I will just leave the bug unreported".

Depending on the crossover between 'would make Github' and 'will report useful information', this could be a good thing. If the intersection of the two groups is big enough, jettisoning 95% of people will massively improve the signal to noise ratio. In the battle of 'Reika vs. the Bad Users', only having to dealing with 5% of users is probably better.

 

[Reika]

I'm unclear on how the version itself is factored in.

If I close a version-check for a version of a mod, say v5c, is it at least gone forever until v5d, or do I have to deal with it every time I load a pack?

If it comes up every time I load a pack, that's a major issue. I have 200 mods in a given pack; if any reasonable fraction of them are using popup forms to warn me about out of date mods, that's incredibly intrusive. And its unfair to assume a single dev gets special treatment to use popups, so its important to assume they all do when gauging intrusiveness.

I can make it do either - it currently is per launch - but unless it actually satisfies more than a handful of people, I do not want to spend two hours changing that, as it is difficult to code (and somewhat fragile code) that I do not want to waste on something that will not help in any major way.

EDIT: See my reply below Strikingwolf.

Depending on the crossover between 'would make Github' and 'will report useful information', this could be a good thing. If the intersection of the two groups is big enough, jettisoning 95% of people will massively improve the signal to noise ratio. In the battle of 'Reika vs. the Bad Users', only having to dealing with 5% of users is probably better.

Did you miss what I said in the very next line?

You can say what you want about "people like that never submit useful reports", but it is simply untrue. Indeed, many of my real bug reports also come from random people.

 

[Strikingwolf]

I can make it do either - it currently is per launch - but unless it actually satisfies more than a handful of people, I do not want to spend two hours changing that, as it is difficult to code (and somewhat fragile code) that I do not want to waste on something that will not help in any major way.

I would definitely be satisfied if it was per update. Although it could be made less intrusive it would be alright if it was per update

 

[Reika]

I just remembered - there already is a per update framework in place - that is what the command does. I think it might be per major version too.

 

[Strikingwolf]

I just remembered - there already is a per update framework in place - that is what the command does. I think it might be per major version too.

That's a good point. So we just run the command and then we only have to ever close it once...That sounds pretty good, I'm satisfied with this update checker

 

[Pyure]

I can make it do either - it currently is per launch - but unless it actually satisfies more than a handful of people, I do not want to spend two hours changing that, as it is difficult to code (and somewhat fragile code) that I do not want to waste on something that will not help in any major way.

I understand what you're trying to do, but assuming users are going to be satisfied with a popup on every launch just doesn't compute. I can't really imagine that the ends are going to justify the means here.

I just remembered - there already is a per update framework in place - that is what the command does. I think it might be per major version too.

This is still annoying but not alarmingly more so than the usual chat messages we get about mods being outdated. If I'm understanding this correctly, I'd get a single warning about v5d, another about v5e, and so on. (fewer depending on whether the major-versioning works.)

Annoying but not really stop-using-the-mods annoying (were I using them)

 

[Reika]

I understand what you're trying to do, but assuming users are going to be satisfied with a popup on every launch just doesn't compute. I can't really imagine that the ends are going to justify the means here.

Go back and read my above posts to see the rest of the information, and also, I went with this implementation because it is far easier, and many other developers also have per-login popups and seem to get no hate. Indeed, it was Ichun's mods that gave me the idea.

First off, I'm not here to defend you or the part of the community that follows you or the part of the community that hates you. Many people are aware of the levels of harassment you and perhaps even other modders experience, and namecallers, DDOS'ers, ... the fact that they do these sort of things says enough about them as a person and should not deserve anymore attention.
Now it's obvious that you swim against the current no matter how strong it is to acchieve your creative/intellectual goals or principles (which is something few people are capable of), but don't let genuine feedback get lost in that flow.

The thing is, while I do not doubt other mod developers get stupid reports or complaints, I am consistently told that no, what I receive is something special, and several developers have expressed surprise at the level I received. In one notable case, they doubted the truth of my claims...until it happened in front of them.

Also, several other developers do the same thing as me and get no flak - I mentioned IChun's notification above, but I also think of things like RWTema's sword and various mod easter eggs, equivalents of which I have and get harassed for but the community is more than willing to accept for other developers. Same goes for how people react to things I say.

Also, a chunk of it really is personal, seeing as I do have traits some see as acceptable targets.

 

[Pyure]

Go back and read my above posts to see the rest of the information, and also, I went with this implementation because it is far easier, and many other developers also have per-login popups and seem to get no hate. Indeed, it was Ichun's mods that gave me the idea.

Noticed, done.

 

[SynfulChaot]

As for the version checker: Yes, I know I removed the config, because it was incompatible with the new system. The argument that only pack devs should see an update message, unless the pack is no longer maintained, is a legitimate one, and one I tried to account for. Unfortunately, two things happened. One, it failed to work much. Many players still saw the message, and a few pack developers tried to get sneaky and subvert it (and of course, went on to report old bugs again). Two, many of the complaints I got initially came from pack devs, saying that it was unreasonable to expect them to A) update my mods if they are updating their pack and B) not go nine months without updates on an active and popular pack. I understand busy - trust me, I know all too well - but (A) takes minutes and (B) directly leads to the issues I am talking about, and likely not just for me.

I do not want to punish players or packmakers doing things properly. I am trying to catch two cases: Lazy/incompetent pack makers ("eh, updating is a pain, I'll just leave it thanks") and discontinued packs - Monster being the elephant in the room, or at least an example of it - where, yes, I expect servers or SSP players to take up the role of updating. Especially with the grace period that I had - and I am working on including it again - updating within two weeks is not an arduous task, and falls well within someone's role as a server admin. An admin taking issue with that is no different than one taking issue with having to tweak configs or clean up damage. Oh wait, they do that too...

As one who works in enterprise-level network and system administration, I have to say that you don't understand understand the requirements of running stable servers. There rings true an old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." In the world of administration this is absolutely true. Now the difference here seems to be that you view all old bugs as 'broken', whilst I only consider it broken if it is affecting those on the server. Yes, some smaller bugs might exist if you don't update, but if they're not affecting your users then you don't need to worry about updating them yet. Because as much as you may say updates only fix things, I think we both know enough about code to know that for every patch there are likely unexpected bugs created. Were that not true you wouldn't need to keep patching bugs so often, no?

When I update my pack I don't always update each and every mod each and every time. Why? Each one requires testing. Testing takes time. So I prioritize those with the most critical fixes and feature updates first, then minor fixes afterwards. And while I do that I consider mods deciding to harass my users with update notifications completely unacceptable. That is why I have a hardline stance against all mods that have unremovable update reminders.

You say two weeks isn't arduous. You forget that you're not the only mod out there and that testing takes time. And that modpack devs often have jobs and lives outside of Minecraft and might actually want to play the damn game from time to time as well. That isn't because modpack makers are feckless and lazy or incompetent. The fact that you constantly allude that any that don't have a rapid update cycle are inept is not only patently false, but it's highly insulting as well.

 

[Pyure]

Now the difference here seems to be that you view all old bugs as 'broken', whilst I only consider it broken if it is affecting those on the server. Yes, some smaller bugs might exist if you don't update, but if they're not affecting your users then you don't need to worry about updates.

Strong point. It puts the dev in a tough position because its hard to discriminate between bugs that MIGHT affect users and those that definitely will.

Because as much as you may say updates only fix things, I think we both know enough about code to know that for every patch there are likely unexpected bugs created. Were that not true you wouldn't need to keep patching bugs so often, no?

Be mindful of regression scenarios. You're inadvertently creating the image that the dev runs in circles creating bugs from bugs, whereas in reality 99% of the bugs are based on brand new mechanics.

 

[Reika]

Now the difference here seems to be that you view all old bugs as 'broken', whilst I only consider it broken if it is affecting those on the server. Yes, some smaller bugs might exist if you don't update, but if they're not affecting your users then you don't need to worry about updates.

If they exist, they will affect your server. They may not be doing so now, but would you rather not update before someone crashes it and makes it temporarily unloadable by placing a GPR, corrupts it by Teleposing a pylon, or gets 6500000 blaze powder from an exploit?

Because as much as you may say updates only fix things, I think we both know enough about code to know that for every patch there are likely unexpected bugs created. Were that not true you wouldn't need to keep patching bugs so often, no?

No. All but a very few bugs of mine get introduced in major versions, as a result of content addition or system redesign. Minor versions almost never have those kinds of changes, and even when they do, they are not the same severity as major version bugs. Seeing as the two week period is longer than any minor version will be later than its parent, this is a non-issue: You can go straight from v5d to v6f without issue.

When I update my pack I don't always update each and every mod each and every time. Why? Each one requires testing. Testing takes time. So I prioritize those with the most critical fixes and feature updates first, then minor fixes afterwards.

Or you could add all the mods at once, seeing as you often have to do that anyways given API issues? I maintain a server and do that too. It takes maybe an hour a week for a large pack (150 mods) on a server that every mod sees some use.

And while I do that I consider mods deciding to harass my users with update notifications completely unacceptable.

You missed the part about only telling the pack dev, or that is insufficient for you.

That is why I have a hardline stance against all mods that have unremovable update reminders.

And you also missed the command, apparently.

This is what I mean. I do not mean to target you personally, but you are doing exactly what I am talking about when I say people miss half the tools at their disposal and then complain as if they do not exist.

You say two weeks isn't arduous. You forget that you're not the only mod out there and that testing takes time. And that modpack devs often have jobs and lives outside of Minecraft and might actually want to play the damn game from time to time as well. That isn't because modpack makers are feckless and lazy or incompetent. The fact that you constantly allude that any that don't have a rapid update cycle are inept is not only patently false, but it's highly insulting as well.

As I said above, I do the same - and make the damn mods - in less time. Also, judging from your and other's posts, it is not that two weeks is insufficient. I could make it a month, two months, six months - totally destroying the point of an update checker, given my major versions are usually about 1.5 months apart - and you would still complain.

 

[Kotaro]

Since Reikas mods are usually largely world affecting, a pop up once just for the owner isn't that bad. I don't see it much different than logging in and seeing my entire chat window spammed with updates. I've corrupted my world more than once by not updating a mod in time.

Is it possible if that you added a way to disable the notification, that the user waives any right to issue bug reports? I am still getting into modding, so I don't know if that would be useful, or if you're willing to go that far. Probably been suggested many times though.

 

[Padfoote]

Is it possible if that you added a way to disable the notification, that the user waives any right to issue bug reports? I am still getting into modding, so I don't know if that would be useful, or if you're willing to go that far. Probably been suggested many times though.

This is implying people will listen. And they typically will not.

 

[Reika]

This is implying people will listen. And they typically will not.

Also, it is again not the pack devs I am most concerned with. Despite what gets sworn up and down, a vast number of players of packs - especially large public packs - do not go to the pack dev when they have issues. If they go to anyone, they go to the person whose name they saw in the stacktrace and complain that they broke their game. That or they just mouth off on twitter about how that person is an "incompetent fool", and if they are just told to update, they revise that judgement to an "insensitive blowhard".

 

[SynfulChaot]

Strong point. It puts the dev in a tough position because its hard to discriminate between bugs that MIGHT affect users and those that definitely will.

Not really. Mod makers generally fix all real bugs that come to them. But there's the second layer who are put in the tough position. Those are the server admins. They must decide if a particular update is important/critical enough to update on their server. That decision should be solely up to the opinions of the server admin, not the modmakers. And the users should not get punished for a difference in opinion between the two. Yes, some servers run bleeding-edge. Reika probably likes them. But not all should be required to. I'm more old-school and prefer long-term stability, meaning fewer updates unless features are added or issues are encountered by the players on my server. That's the course taken by enterprise solutions for very understandable reasons.

Be mindful of regression scenarios. You're inadvertently creating the image that the dev runs in circles creating bugs from bugs, whereas in reality 99% of the bugs are based on brand new mechanics.

Naw. Not what I'm meaning. Many are based on new mechanics. Some are inadvertently created by an unexpected interaction from fixing a previous bug, something far more common than many would admit. Also not something I ever blame a dev for. Code is unwielding and complex, y'know?

If they exist, they will affect your server. They may not be doing so now, but would you rather not update before someone crashes it and makes it temporarily unloadable by placing a GPR, corrupts it by Teleposing a pylon, or gets 6500000 blaze powder from an exploit?

You assume good admins don't read changelogs and aren't capable of making judgement calls for themselves. Please don't do that.

No. All but a very few bugs of mine get introduced in major versions, as a result of content addition or system redesign. Minor versions almost never have those kinds of changes, and even when they do, they are not the same severity as major version bugs. Seeing as the two week period is longer than any minor version will be later than its parent, this is a non-issue: You can go straight from v5d to v6f without issue.

Almost never != never.

Or you could add all the mods at once, seeing as you often have to do that anyways given API issues? I maintain a server and do that too. It takes maybe an hour a week.

No. To properly test it takes well longer than an hour if you run a modpack of decent size. And then you must not only test it client side, but on a 'test server' as well as some issues only manifest when played on servers.

You missed the part about only telling the pack dev, or that is insufficient for you.

If I can permanently turn it off for my users then that's sufficient for me. I keep them on on my own version. But it must be a permanent disable, not one that will be overridden at anyone else's whims. All my users need to know is that they need to run the newest version of my pack and to report all issues to me. I, then, verify against the newest version of the mods, yes sometimes newer than what's in the pack, and only pass it on to the devs if it still persists then.

And you also missed the command, apparently.

Last I checked from every source, including yourself, that only persisted for x number of major versions, not permanently. That isn't sufficient for me.

This is what I mean. I do not mean to target you personally, but you are doing exactly what I am talking about when I say people miss half the tools at their disposal and then complain as if they do not exist.

I haven't missed them. All information provided tells me that it isn't permanent and will be overridden once they become too old for your discretion. Your judgement calls on what version I must run doesn't matter. Just as I shouldn't tell you what you should run or do with your mod, you shouldn't tell me what version I need to be running.

As I said above, I do the same - and make the damn mods - in less time. Also, judging from your and other's posts, it is not that two weeks is insufficient. I could make it a month, two months, six months - totally destroying the point of an update checker, given my major versions are usually about 1.5 months apart - and you would still complain.

Good on ya. I have other things to do with my free time than just administer my modpack and server. I have other obligations and interests that take a much larger majority of my time, including helping to lead a sizable RP guild in a MMO. Minecraft is just my side hobby to my main hobby.

Here's the thing, Reika. I think having a checker is a good thing. A very good thing. But having it irremovable is a bad thing. A very bad thing. There is a reason every single piece of decent professional software out there has it on by default but allows you to turn it off. If a user wants to run an old version for whatever reason they choose the should be allowed to without harassment. This is doubly true for servers that desire long-term stability. They should also not expect to have their ancient bug reports listened to, though.

Having the ability to turn off a version checker doesn't destroy the point of it. It just gives people an option if they're fine running old versions that have known, and fixed in later versions, bugs. Sometimes the bugs you know are more desirable than the ones you don't, you know?

I should also note that I believe that last update to any modpack before they go unsupported should turn on all version checkers. Because at that point it becomes the user's prerogative.

 

[Kotaro]

This is implying people will listen. And they typically will not.

Oh, I'm not assuming that people will listen at all. I'm saying if they report a bug from an old version, it can just be completely ignored from the devs end.

 

[Padfoote]

Oh, I'm not assuming that people will listen at all. I'm saying if they report a bug from an old version, it can just be completely ignored from the devs end.

That isn't easy to do or even possible at times. People withhold information, logs, etc. just to get help / annoy devs. Reika can tell you all about that as he deals with it on a daily basis, I don't.

 

[Kotaro]

That isn't easy to do or even possible at times. People withhold information, logs, etc. just to get help / annoy devs. Reika can tell you all about that as he deals with it on a daily basis, I don't.

And now I think I just had the argument with myself that would have spawned the version checker, heh.