Skip to content

Clarify wraithform skip-branch comment in affoff#97

Open
rodarvus wants to merge 1 commit into
zzyzzyzzx:masterfrom
rodarvus:fix/wraithform-comment-clarify-skip
Open

Clarify wraithform skip-branch comment in affoff#97
rodarvus wants to merge 1 commit into
zzyzzyzzx:masterfrom
rodarvus:fix/wraithform-comment-clarify-skip

Conversation

@rodarvus

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

In SpellupRecast/Hadar_Spellups.xml, the affoff() function has a loop that runs when wraithform (sn 180) drops. The loop iterates over Spellups["EX"]["wraithform"] and, for each related spell, checks table.find(v, Spellups["AF"]["list"]) — a truthy result means the player is currently affected by spell v. In that case the branch is intentionally a no-op (spell is still active, nothing to requeue); the else branch queues and recasts.

The original placeholder comment was --left empty becaue (typo, no explanation), which doesn't tell a reader why the branch is empty. This PR replaces it with a one-line comment describing the intent.

Before

if table.find(v,Spellups["AF"]["list"]) then
    --left empty becaue
else
    ...
end

After

if table.find(v,Spellups["AF"]["list"]) then
    -- spell v is still active on the player; no need to requeue
else
    ...
end

Test plan

  • Comment-only change. No behavior is altered.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

In affoff(), when wraithform (sn 180) drops, the loop over
Spellups["EX"]["wraithform"] checks each related spell with
table.find(v, Spellups["AF"]["list"]) -- a truthy result means
spell v is currently affecting the player. In that case the branch
intentionally does nothing (the spell is still active, no need to
requeue); otherwise the spell is requeued.

Replace the unclear "--left empty becaue" placeholder with a comment
that says what the empty branch is for.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant