[BUG] Parse error in ion storm script (rev 6908)

Programmers discuss here anything related to FreeOrion programming. Primarily for the developers to discuss.

Moderator: Committer

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 6095
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

[BUG] Parse error in ion storm script (rev 6908)

#1 Post by Vezzra »

Found the following error in freeoriond.log:

Code: Select all

2014-02-16 15:14:27,857 ERROR Server : /Users/user/SoftwareProjekte/FO/script_unigen/FreeOrion/Xcode/build/Test/FreeOrion.app/Contents/Resources/default/fields.txt:26:16: Parse error.  Expected real number variable name (e.g., Growth) -OR- integer variable name (e.g., FleetID) here:
        EffectsGroup    // affect stealth / detection of objects in storm
            scope = WithinDistance distance = Source.Size condition = Source
            stackinggroup = "ION_STORM_STEALTH_DETECTION_REDUCTION"
            effects = [
                SetStealth Value - Target.DistanceToSource
                SetDetection Value - Target.DistanceToSource
                ^
            ]
            
        EffectsGroup    // dissipate when small
            scope = Source
            activation = Size high = 10
Guess that has something to do with the changes in rev 6901?

Immediately after this error messages the following showed up:

Code: Select all

2014-02-16 15:14:27,858 ERROR Server : CreateField::Execute couldn't get field type with name: FLD_NEBULA_2
2014-02-16 15:14:27,858 ERROR Server : CreateField::Execute couldn't get field type with name: FLD_NEBULA_2
2014-02-16 15:14:27,858 ERROR Server : CreateField::Execute couldn't get field type with name: FLD_NEBULA_2
2014-02-16 15:14:27,858 ERROR Server : CreateField::Execute couldn't get field type with name: FLD_NEBULA_2
Guess that's caused by the first error.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: [BUG] Parse error in ion storm script (rev 6908)

#2 Post by Geoff the Medio »

Vezzra wrote:Guess that has something to do with the changes in rev 6901?
Seems like it. I'd forgotten I'd actually used that for something. I'll switch it to a fixed penalty of 40 or so...

Post Reply