Re: bug in infantry building a base which is already started

[Hans Ronne <hronne at comhem dot se>]

>Well, for once, the report didn't actually lead to a problem in the
>create/build code. The 'for_all_view_stack_with_occs' macro does not
>consider the incomplete base for some reason, when it is going through
>the unit views in the cell. Instead it finds both the infantry, and, of
>course, they are not interested in building one another. And so the task
>fails silently.
>
>This raises an issue of whether side notification messages should be
>generated by tasks or not. The UI and the various impl_* functions are
>not omnipotent, and it might be wiser to report failures at the points
>of failure instead of trying to guess them (as the UI does).
>
>But the notification issue and the apparent bug in the unit view macro
>aside, I believe I have fixed the bug that you reported. I just swapped
>the 'for_all_view_stack_with_occs' with 'for_all_view_stack'. The only
>reason I used the former to begin with was to handle the case where a
>builder might want to work on another unit's occs.

Actually, what macro you use doesn't make any difference, i.e. the second
infantry still refuses to join the build, and instead goes into passive
waiting mode.

However, if you override the view code by turning on see-all things work as
expected, with either macro. So it seems that the core unit view code is
the real culprit. The unit view code is unusual in that it uses a hash
table and "nextinhash" rather than the usual "nexthere".  The effect of
see-all is to overide the use of "nextinhash".

I always had a bad feeling about the view code and its hash table, since I
am not convinced that it works as expected in all circumstances. Maybe we
should take a closer look at it.

Hans