Re: Two more AI bugs

[Hans Ronne <hronne at pp dot sbbs dot se>]

>> The culprit was the static array apnbt_types that was introduced 18
>> months ago when Stan removed the MAXUTYPES restrictions in xconq. This
>> array was not zeroed
>
>Nice catch.  I've been seeing some strange building behavior in the
>standard game, but it's hard to say whether this might be it.

This bug only hit acp-independent units, so it would not affect the
standard game. But we should check that all the other static arrays that
were introduced at the same time are zeroed. I already checked the
acp-dependent build code in ai.c (preferred_build_type) and it seems to be
OK.

>I've been thinking of writing some automated unit tests for xconq
>(sample for this bug: take a known map and set of units, then call
>auto_pick_new_build_task which is somehow rigged up to return back to
>the test code around the select_by_weight call (which then checks the
>weights against a known answer).  But I haven't had much time, and as
>can be seen by this example, it can be hard to know what level to hook
>the test code in at.  But it would prevent this kind of regression,
>which can be kind of hard to spot by just noticing that the AI seems
>stupider.

Perhaps one of the existing test games could be adapted for this?

Hans

Hans Ronne

hronne@pp.sbbs.se