-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Include sliders in accuracy pp if slider head accuracy is in use #27063
Merged
bdach
merged 10 commits into
ppy:master
from
tsunyoku:account-for-sliders-in-accuracy-pp
Oct 7, 2024
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
8ccb14f
include slider count in accuracy pp if slider head accuracy is in use
tsunyoku b272252
Merge branch 'master' into account-for-sliders-in-accuracy-pp
bdach fcc8e7b
Invert condition to reduce number of brain flips required
smoogipoo ced11e6
Even better readability
smoogipoo 132931f
Create variable to check if using slideracc
Finadoggie 7a849c7
Fix formatting
Finadoggie 9b1ae2f
fix the code such that it actually works when testing it
Finadoggie 7cfc389
remove double-negative on `usingClassicSliderHeadAccuracy`
tsunyoku 2d26941
Merge pull request #2 from Finadoggie/patch-1
tsunyoku 707c237
Merge branch 'master' into account-for-sliders-in-accuracy-pp
bdach File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The change itself is fine, but I'll raise the same point I keep bringing in all other lazer-related pp PRs - I strongly believe we need to split calculators into classic and non-classic because of the code bloat (lots of possible
if lazer or classic
all around the calc) and more complete score data on new scores that we can (I hope?) utilise.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
all the difference lazer have is new information, so it's not a lot of code bloat, around 10-15 additional lines to covers this i think
also, this thing is not a lazer vs stable, it's CL vs non CL
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
All stable scores are CL by default and all lazer scores are non-CL by default. Treating lazer CL differently compared to stable auto-CL doesn't make much sense therefore CL scores must always use stable score data structure.
Mod ifs are already a big mess in pp calc now, adding CL handling on top would make it even more convoluted. Keep in mind that we have to handle both extended score data and legacy score data since stable is here to stay
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that it might get a little messy to sprinkle CL checks everywhere, however I equally see it being messy having to maintain 2 separate calculators that will share (mostly) the same logic. Having to make identical changes in 2 places whenever PP changes doesn't sound like a particularly great alternative.