In Screeps, I this code doesn't work:
var sources = creep.room.find(Game.FIND_SOURCES_ACTIVE);
It says this:
Cannot read property 'find' of undefined
I have been looking around and cannot find ANY other way to find sources.
Also I've noticed that most of other peoples code doesn't work and even the tutorial's code no longer works when put into the real game.
I can't be completely sure about your issue since I don't have your complete code to go off of but one issue could be that creepis not defined.
You need somewhere in your code to define creep such as a for loop to loop over each of your creeps in the game or room.
var roleMiner = require('role.miner') // role.miner being the module name for miner actions
for(var name in Game.creeps) {
var creep = Game.creeps[name];
//
// do whatever you wish with the current selected creep.
//
// most of the time you will call a module similar to what the tutorials suggest and put your actions for it in there
//
if(creep.memory.role == 'miner'){
roleMiner.run(creep); // passes the current selected creep to the run function in the module
}
}
So, in your roleMiner module you would have something that defines your miners actions.
var roleMiner = {
run: function(creep) {
// this one returns an array of the sources that are in the room with the creep
var sourcesRoom = creep.room.find(FIND_SOURCES);
// this one returns the source object which is closest to the creeps positon
var sourcesClose = creep.pos.findClosestByRange(FIND_SOURCES);
}
}
module.exports = roleMiner;
Hope this helps.
Screeps have some ... mechanism when sharing your data between each game tick.
If you store any thing in global Memory object, your data will lose all its prototype.
to restore your prototype use Object.setPrototypeOf(creep,Creep.prototype) or create new Creep object from your creep id.
I think what you are looking for is:
var sources = creep.pos.findClosestByRange(Game.SOURCES);
or
var sources = creep.pos.findClosestByPath(Game.SOURCES);
im a new player, not sure my code is efficient, i think the find method will be like this:
var sources = creep.room.find(FIND_SOURCES_ACTIVE)
creep will going to the active resource to harvester.
Related
Edit: the code below was made up on the spot to show how I was going about what I was doing. It definietely won't run, it is missing a lot of things.
Here is a working example in codepen: https://codepen.io/goducks/pen/XvgpYW
much shorter example: https://codepen.io/goducks/pen/ymXMyB
When creating a function that is using call or apply, the this value stays null when using getPerson. however, when I use apply or call with getPerson it returns the correct person.
Please critique, I am really starting to learn more and more. I am in the middle of a project section so it might be hard to change all the code, but my next project could implement this better.
call and apply are setting to the window and not the object.
I will provide code that is much simpler with the same concept of what I am talking about.
function createPerson(){
this.manager = null;
this.teamManager = null;
this.setTeamManager = function(val){
this.teamManager = val;
}
this.setManager = function(val){
console.log('setting manager to',val);
this.teamManager = val;
}
this.getTeamManager = function(){
console.log('setting team manager to',val);
return this.teamManager ;
}
this.getManager = function(){
return this.manager;
}
this.appendSelect = function(elem){
var that = this;
createOtherSelects(that,elem);
}
//some functions that create selects with managers etc
//now assume there are other selects that will filter down the teams,
//so we might have a function that creates on change events
function createOtherSelects(that){
//code that creates locations, depending on location chosen will
//filter the managers
$('#location').on('change',function(){
//do some stuff
//... then call create management
createManagement(that,elem);
});
}
function createManagement(that,elem){
var currentLocation = that.location; //works
var area = that.area;//works ... assume these are set above
//code that returns a filter and unique set of managers back
that.teamManager = [...new Set(
data.map(person=>{
if(person.area==area &&
person.currentLocation==currentLocation
){
return person;
}
})
)].filter(d=>{if(d){return d}});
if(elem.length>0){
var selectNames = ['selectManager','selectTeamManager'];
var fcns = [that.setManager,that.setTeamManager];
for(var i = 0; i < selectNames.length;i++){
//do stuff
if(certainCriteriaMet){
// filter items
if(filteredManager == 1){
fcns[i].call(null,currentManager);//
}
}
}
}
}
}
var xx = new createPerson()
In console I see setting manager and setting team manager to with the correct values.
however when I call xx in console, I see everything else set except for
xx.teamManager and xx.manager
instead it is applying to the window, so if I type teamManager in the console, it will return with the correct person.
If I straight up say
that.setManager('Steve')
or even it works just fine.
xx.setManager('steve')
the this value in setManager is somehow changing from the current instance of the object to this window. I don't know why, and I would like to learn how to use apply and call using that for future reference.
I think the issue is with your following code
fcns[i].call(null,currentManager)
If you are not supplying "this" to call, it will be replaced with global object in non-strict mode.
fcns[i].call(that,currentManager)
See mdn article here
From your codepen example, you need to change that line
fcnset[0].apply(that,[randomName]);
The first argument of the apply method is the context, if you are not giving it the context of your method it's using the global context be default. That's why you end up mutating the window object, and not the one you want !
this would be my first question ever on stackoverflow, hope this goes well.
I've been working on a game (using corona SDK) and I used Node.js to write a small little server to handle some chat messages between my clients, no problems there.
Now I'm working on expanding this little server to do some more, and what I was thinking to do is create an external file (module) that will hold an object that has all the functions and variables I would need to represent a Room in my games "Lobby", where 2 people can go into to play one against the other, and each time I have 2 players ready to play, I would create a copy of this empty room for them, and then initialize the game in that room.
So I have an array in my main project file, where each cell is a room, and my plan was to import my module into that array, and then I can init the game in that specific "room", the players would play, the game will go on, and all would be well... but... my code in main.js:
var new_game_obj = require('./room.js');
games[room_id] = new_game_obj();
games[room_id].users = [user1_name,user2_name];
Now, in my room.js, I have something of the sort:
var game_logistics = {};
game_logistics.users = new Array();
game_logistics.return_users_count = function(){
return game_logistics.users.length;
}
module.exports = function() {
return game_logistics;
}
So far so good, and this work just fine, I can simply go:
games[room_id].return_users_count()
And I will get 0, or 1, or 2, depending of course how many users have joined this room.
The problems starts once I open a new room, since Node.js will instance the module I've created and not make a copy of it, if I now create a new room, even if I eliminated and/or deleted the old room, it will have all information from the old room which I've already updated, and not a new clean room. Example:
var new_game_obj = require('./room.js');
games["room_1"] = new_game_obj();
games["room_2"] = new_game_obj();
games["room_1"].users = ["yuval","lahav"];
_log(games["room_1"].return_user_count()); //outputs 2...
_log(games["room_2"].return_user_count()); //outputs 2...
Even doing this:
var new_game_obj = require('./room.js');
games["room_1"] = new_game_obj();
var new_game_obj2 = require('./room.js');
games["room_2"] = new_game_obj2();
games["room_1"].users = ["yuval","lahav"];
_log(games["room_1"].return_user_count()); //outputs 2...
_log(games["room_2"].return_user_count()); //outputs 2...
Gives the same result, it is all the same instance of the same module in all the "copies" I make of it.
So my question as simple as that, how do I create a "clean" copy of my original module instead of just instancing it over and over again and actually have just one messy room in the end?
What you're doing is this (replacing your require() call with what gets returned);
var new_game_obj = function() {
return game_logistics;
}
So, every time you call new_game_obj, you return the same instance of game_logistics.
Instead, you need to make new_game_obj return a new instance of game_logistics;
// room.js
function Game_Logistics() {
this.users = [];
this.return_users_count = function(){
return this.users.length;
};
}
module.exports = function() {
return new Game_Logistics();
}
This is quite a shift in mentality. You'll see that we're using new on Game_Logistics in module.exports to return a new instance of Game_Logistics each time it's called.
You'll also see that inside Game_Logistics, this is being used everywhere rather than Game_Logistics; this is to make sure we're referencing the correct instance of Game_Logistics rather than the constructor function.
I've also capitalized your game_logistics function to adhere to the widely-followed naming convention that constructor functions should be capitalized (more info).
Taking advantage of the prototype chain in JavaScript is recommended when you're working with multiple instances of functions. You can peruse various articles on "javascript prototypical inheritance* (e.g. this one), but for now, the above will accomplish what you need.
I need a Set that has the API similar to the Set in Java.
This implementation:
http://jsclass.jcoglan.com/set.html
Requires the use of RequireJS, which requires my Java brain to twist too much at the moment.
Posting a function that is the functionality for Set would be a great answer.
Or a link to a Google Set or some other tech giant who has created this code already.
What about Google's Closure? The name confused me but it has a set.
In my opinion whatever java.util.Set can achieve can be done using simple javascript object. I don't see why you need additional library:
// empty set
var basket = {};
// adding object to set
basket['apple'] = true;
basket['banana'] = true;
basket['orange'] = true;
basket['apple'] = true;
// iterating through set contents, should print:
// apple
// banana
// orange
for(var fruit in basket)
console.log(fruit);
// check if an element exist
if(basket['pineapple']) {
console.log('has pineapple');
} else {
console.log('no pineapple');
}
// remove element from set
delete basket['apple'];
I have the following code to implement Observable Memory Store
var inventory = [
{name:"shoes", quantity:10, category:"sales"},
{name:"clothes", quantity:5, category:"sales"},
{name:"hats", quantity:2, category:"sales"},
{name:"shirts", quantity:20, category:"sales"}
];
var inventoryStore = new Memory({data:inventory, idProperty: "name"});
var observer = new Observable(inventoryStore);
results = observer.query({});
results.observe(function(item, removedIndex, insertedIndex) {
if(removedIndex > -1) {
console.log("removed");
}
if(insertedIndex > -1) {
console.log("added");
}
console.log("Listened");
}, true);
inventoryStore.put(someObject);
Interestingly, the code does not listen to the changes made in inventoryStore. I expected it to call observe() method whenever something happens in the inventoryStore but it does not. Instead, if I put object in the observer not inventoryStore then it listens.
If I change the code like the follow
var inventoryStore = new Observable(Memory({data:inventory, idProperty: "name"}));
results = inventoryStore.query({});
inventoryStore.put(someObject);
then it works. This is frustrating that even I followed exact code from the documentation and it does not work.
The reason why I have to use the first code block (putting object in inventoryStore not in observer) is that some of my object can't be stored in Observable Memory but only in Memory.
Any advice will be appreciated :)
After hours of testing, it turns out that to observe changes in Memory Store, you have to add / remove / update objects through Observable object not through the Memory.
This means you have two options to implement this.
var inventoryStore = new Memory({data:inventory, idProperty:"name"});
var observer = new Observable(inventoryStore);
results = observer.query({});
observer.put(someObject);
or
var inventoryStore = new Observable(new Memory({data:inventory, idProperty:"name"});
results = inventoryStore.query({});
inventoryStore.put(someObject);
This may seem obvious but I was confused following the tutorial under this link.
http://www.tulek.org/2011/04/14/dojo-memory-and-observable-classes/
In addition,
observer.setData(another Inventory);
does not fire the observe() method but just change data store in the observer. This causes mismatching data store between Observable and Memory Store since Memory Store still has the original inventory set.
The reason why some of my object couldn't be stored in Observable was that I used dojo/calendar/Calendar and it had a reference to some of the objects from the Memory that call some weird method due to property name mismatched.
I hope none of you people suffer from this matter. :)
Although this post is 2 years old, i really benefit from it, because i suffered the same problem. But my fault was to set the overwrite flag as second param when calling the observe method (facepalm).
So if any of you stick on this problem nevertheless, make sure to set the includeObjectUpdates param.
resultSet.observe(listener, includeObjectUpdates);
Bye.
First things first: I'm not sure whether the information that I'm going to provide will be enough, I will happily add additional information if needed.
I'm serializing a complex structure into the JSON-Format, Field[i][0] is the "this"-reference to an object.
Firebug's Output on JSON.Stringify(myObj)
This is all fine and working as long as I keep it all JS. But now I have the requirement to serialize and send it to my backend to get the reference + computed information back.
Now how do I map back to the reference I had before? How do I bind this ref back to an Object?
This $$hash thing looks internal and proprietarish so I havent even bothered trying something like Object[$$hash] = ref or whatever.
This general idea probably seems pretty whack, but the result is returned asynchrously and I need an identifier to bind the new information back to the original object. Obviously I could just make up my own identifier for that, but I was wondering whether there's an option to solve it this way.
EDIT
The objects are created like this (likewise)
var arrayOfObj = []
arrayOfObj.push(new Object.With.SomeSettersAndGetters());
The Object has a method like
function GetRef(){
return this;
}
Which I'm using to keep a ID/Ref through my code.
Thank you!
Update
If you want to update a series of instances and make many Ajax requests, then you need to look at Ajax long polling and queueing techniques. You won't be able to preserve the reference, but regardless of what Ajax technique you use, make use of the below trick to preserve the reference.
Add long polling on top and you're good to go.
The idea is this:
Assume the server will respond in JSON format. If you need to refer to the original references, here's my two cents:
Update the exact references when the server replies. Say you have 10 instances of Something stored in an array. On a successful response, you use the methods in the Something class to update the specific instances in whatever way you want.
/**
* The array with something instances.
* #type {Array.<Something>}
*/
var instances = [];
/**
* The Ajax success function.
* #param {Event} event The event object.
*/
function ajaxSuccess(event) {
var response = event.target.getResponseText();
var actualResponse = JSON.parse(response);
for (var i = 0, len = actualResponse.length; i++) {
instances[i].setWhatever(actualResponse[i].whatever);
};
};
The above is a more procedural approach. If you want full blown OOP in JS, then you think in modular design patterns. Say you have a module that loads data into some place. Basically, everything related to that module is an instance property.
var myModule = function() {
this.whatever = 1;
};
myModule.prototype.loadMore = function() {
var request = new XMLHttpRequest(),
that = this; // store a reference to this.
request.send(); // etc
request.onreadystatechange = that.onSucess;
};
myModule.prototype.onSucess = function(event) {
var response = JSON.parse(event.target.getResponseText());
this.whatever = response.whatever;
};
var moduleInstance = new myModule();
myModule.loadMore();
// Now the scope is always preserved. The callback function will be executed in the right scope.
Let's assume on the backend side of things, you have a model class that mimics your client side JavaScript model. Say you want to update a reference inside a model that displays text. I use Scala on the backend, but look at the fields/properties and ignore the syntax.
case class Article (
title: String,// these are my DB fields for an Article.
punchline: String,
content: String,
author: String
);
// now assume the client is making a request and the server returns the JSON
// for an article. So the reply would be something like:
{"title": "Sample title", "punchline": "whatever", "content": "bla bla bla boring", "author": "Charlie Sheen"};
// when you do
var response = JSON.parse(event.target.getResponseText());
// response will become a JavaScript object with the exact same properties.
// again, my backend choice is irrelevant.
// Now assume I am inside the success function, which gets called in the same scope
// as the original object, so it refers TO THE SAME THING.
// the trick is to maintain the reference with var that = this.
// otherwise the onSuccess function will be called in global scope.
// now because it's pointing to the same object.
// I can update whatever I want.
this.title = response.title;
this.punchline = response.punchline;
this.content = response.content;
this.author = response.author;
// or I can put it all in a single variable.
this.data = response;
What you need to remember is that scope needs to be preserved. That's the trick.
When I do var that = this; I copy a reference to the model instance. The reference is remembered through higher-order, not current scope.
Then I tell the XMLHttpRequest object to call that.ajaxSuccess when it is complete. Because I used that, the ajaxSuccess function will be called in the scope of the current object. So inside the ajaxSuccess function, this will point to the original this, the same instance.
JavaScript remembers it for me it when I write var that = this;