[Awaiting feedback] improvement request: grandfathered GC44WX1 checker by jpavlik: show what you're missing for remaining types

Re: improvement request: grandfathered GC44WX1 checker by jpavlik: show what you're missing for remaining types

frumiousb — Sat, 17 Feb 2024 07:01:10 +0000

Hi, @jpavlik (Jet). Thanks for your reply.

I've searched for @ganja1447's original script in these forums and via Google in general. No sign of it yet. So I looked at the source of the current script. I agree that it seems (unnecessarily) complicated.

While I haven't done Lua and have not written any GC checkers - so please correct me if I'm wrong here - I have done some other programming. Noticed this at the end (bold added by me):

function check_NtypesPlusMixed(n, mixed)
  local log={}
  local html={}
  local count=0

  different=false
  local st=get_spelledTypes(myFinds)
  if #st-- not fulfilled yet, but try to list which is done
    local ok=cntpm_walk(#st, 1, st, 1, log, html, mixed, {})
    if not ok then 
      html={}
      cntpm_walk(#st, 1, st, 1, log, html, false, {})
    end
    return {ok=false, log="", html=table.concat(html)}
  end  
  local ok=cntpm_walk(n, 1, st, 1, log, html, mixed, {})
  log=table.concat(log,"\n")
  if not ok then html={} end
  return {ok=ok, log=log, html=table.concat(html)}
end

if conf.types then
  return check_NtypesPlusMixed(conf.types, conf.different)
elseif conf.everyType then
  return check_everyType()
else  
  return check_alternative_phrases(strings, true)
end

Looks like check_everyType() spits out the matching types and then ends once it hits an incomplete (non-matching) type. On the other hand, check_NtypesPlusMixed iterates through the types like check_everyType() does BUT if it hasn't found enough yet that match the username ("#st
Seems as though check_everyType() is what's being run now and conf.types needs to be set to True (or whatever the Lua equivalent is) when calling this script to run check_NtypesPlusMixed instead of check_everyType() .

Thanks for letting me know if I've interpreted the script correctly and if so, whether that conf change would make it work as requested (or if that function is broken).

--Pickypicky

jpavlik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hi Vogel and frumiousb
> I've looked on the script, however it's very
> complicated and I'm not the original author of
> this script. It's modified clon of ganja's script.
> I've made that modify about 9 years ago and now
> I'm not able to understand the structures in this
> script to allow me to modify it. As this type of
> challenge is not more allowed, it has no sense to
> this effort.
> So, i recommend you to search another similar
> script that has the feature you want.
> Maybe the original ganja1447's script works
> better. Search it and try it.
> Sorry, I cannot help you
> Jet

Re: improvement request: grandfathered GC44WX1 checker by jpavlik: show what you're missing for remaining types

jpavlik — Wed, 17 Jan 2024 23:54:23 +0000

hi Vogel and frumiousb
I've looked on the script, however it's very complicated and I'm not the original author of this script. It's modified clon of ganja's script. I've made that modify about 9 years ago and now I'm not able to understand the structures in this script to allow me to modify it. As this type of challenge is not more allowed, it has no sense to this effort.
So, i recommend you to search another similar script that has the feature you want.
Maybe the original ganja1447's script works better. Search it and try it.
Sorry, I cannot help you
Jet

Re: improvement request: grandfathered GC44WX1 checker by jpavlik: show what you're missing for remaining types

frumiousb — Tue, 16 Jan 2024 17:48:58 +0000

Thanks :)

Re: improvement request: grandfathered GC44WX1 checker by jpavlik: show what you're missing for remaining types

vogelbird — Tue, 16 Jan 2024 17:32:56 +0000

I have contacted the scriptwriter to see if he has time to improve the output as requested.

[Awaiting feedback] improvement request: grandfathered GC44WX1 checker by jpavlik: show what you're missing for remaining types

frumiousb — Tue, 16 Jan 2024 15:07:32 +0000

re: https://project-gc.com/Challenges//19691 (checker for OCCT - You Chose It Challenge - With a Twist

The grandfathered challenge (as we all know, this sort of challenge is not allowed for new caches) wants you to spell your geocaching name five times, once each with finds of a different type. So, your caching name spelled out in trads, your name spelled out in multis, etc.

But - the checker output shows only the cache types you've *completed*. My request (to @jpavlik, if available): please modify the output to show which letters the cacher has/still needs for the other types. Otherwise, how do we know which starts-with caches to go find in order to qualify?

Thanks.
--Pickypicky

Output for me looks like this:

Quote

1 Traditional Cache:
2023-10-31 GC5M1CJ Fairfax Family Cemetery PWCC series #23
2019-06-11 GC5T5HY Riding in the Woods
2022-07-30 GC8YJH8 Up up up
2023-10-22 GC36JFA Mallrats
2022-08-14 GC9RDXY In Memory of the Purple Playground
2021-01-08 GC6GTTZ Old Spice
2023-03-23 GC4FDRE Up on The Ridge
2022-01-27 GC399V9 SR-51
2020-01-27 GC1K9X3 Blue Dog of the Woods

2 Unknown Cache:
2020-11-18 GC83A9T Franklin Farm Cache (Rebirth)
2023-04-25 GC9PQ33 Roovendell 12: Gigantor