Review upstream PR #139: broken tool destruction lifecycle - #4
Draft
AzureTai wants to merge 2 commits into
Draft
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Stages jayugg/SmithingPlus PR jayugg#139 against the current integration branch.
Original PR: jayugg#139
Original author: MetaflameDragon
The PR moves broken-tool recovery away from predicting destruction in DamageItem and toward the actual DestroyItem lifecycle. It is being staged for review rather than assumed correct because cancellation through behavior traversal and EnumHandling must not duplicate a head or recover one when destruction is prevented.
A merge decision requires conflict review plus exact Vintage Story 1.22.5 lifecycle validation.