Sanity Check wend insane with SM Mods

[aTumato]

I had a lot of warning messages from the same check when I applied SM's mods. I was hoping that you could help me isolate the causes.

KSP 46 Fatals.log

[Lisias]

This is going to be a bit hairy. :P

SM withdrew all the (known to me) download sources for his Add'Ons, so we left without public evidences of the licensing terms. I remember some of them allowing free modify and redistribution of the CONFIG files - but yet, I don't remember which ones.

Of course, I have them (Kraken damned good Add'Ons!) but without a proper licensing terms, I'm reticent to work on it - I'm allowed to tweak with my copies, but without a proper license, I can't redistribute them legally without relying on shady legal loopholes once they are fixed - and a lot of fixes, historically, need to be applied to the Add'On's config files.

I think our best line of action is to reach @SpannerMonkey ( this one - I just realized someone created a login after his) and ask him about an explicit licensing term for the config files.

That would help me a lot, and probably save me from some headaches later on the Forum.

[OSCARWB]

KSP.log
ModuleManager.ConfigCache

— EDITED BY LISIAS —
In order to make my life easier, I'm uploading the files here too!

• KSP.log
• ModuleManager.ConfigCache

[LucaDijk]

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1xVxyPoshzXyFIVgoyWr2_2pa5tAMyz4d?usp=sharing

my KSP.log and ModuleManager.ConfigCache, the error I got when opening KSP said there were 13 fatal files
(disclaimer: I'm DodoontheMün on the forums)

— EDITED BY LISIAS —
In order to make my life easier, I'm uploading the files here too!

• KSP.log
• ModuleManager.ConfigCache

[Lisias]

@byongtube , @OSCARWB , @LucaDijk : Hi, guys.

This is what we have by now.

The problems are patches that need maintenance. It's simple, besides worksome.

The REAL problem is how to fix these things. These Add'Ons are all ARR, without any trace of them to be legally downloaded - hint: keep your backups safe . Being ARR, I can't republish them, integrally or partially, without Author's authorization. Unless the LICENSE on the Add'On says otherwise - I remember at least one of these Add'On stating the .CFG files are on MIT (or something).

My next post will list all SM Add'Ons I have with the licensing terms. Since they are not available anymore to be downloaded, I ask to every one of you to confirm, explicitly, that your copy has the some licensing terms, so I will not be only one saying that.

Why this is important? Because I don't want to be caught on a Copyright Trolling Fest. Unfortunately, there're trigger happy copyright defenders on the Forum and, frankly, I don't want to waste more of my time defending myself on this matter. So I choose to be specially cautious on the matter. I beg your understanding.

[Lisias]

Licenses for the Add'ons mentioned on the log files:

• SM_AFVs
  • ARR. The whole shebang.
  • LICENSE.txt
• SM_Armory
  • ARR. The whole shebang.
  • LICENSE.txt
• SM_Marine
  • ARR. The whole shebang.
  • LICENSE.txt
• SM_MissileLaunchers
  • ARR. The whole shebang.
  • LICENSE.txt
• SM_Static
  • This thing is Missed in Action. I don't have it, I don't know what's inside.
  • I have no way to provide minimally proper support for this one.

The remaining Add'Ons are somewhere on my Archive, still fixing that machine. I will come back to it soon.

Since everything above is plain ARR, there's no need to ask for confirmation from you, guys, as I will not publish fixed patches anyway.

I will handle this as HotFixes - way more cumbersome, but it is what I can do for now - at least, until something (good) happens. If ever.

[Lisias]

Waving the milestone, as I didn't managed to allocate time for this yet.

[SpannerMonkey]

Hi I have dealt with all the sanity check issues and the updated mod versions I'm currently testing are not reporting any tweakscale errors. All that remains to be dealt with is the alleged troublesome % and whether or not to adopt the FOR statement.

[Lisias]

As a matter of fact, if you are willing to redo the TweakScale patches, the best line of action is to bluntly delete any previous patch - and so, you can handle the patch the way you want.

I wrote a full essay here.

I think you will need to use something like this:

@PART[MyFancyTurboprop]:NEEDS[KAX]
{
    -MODULE[TweakScale],* { }
    %MODULE[TweakScale]:NEEDS[TweakScale]:FINAL // Should be :AFTER[TweakScale] but this will be possible only on TweakScale 2.5
    {
        %type = free
    }
}

That :FINAL stunt is important for now. TweakScale should really be using :FOR on its patches, but when I tried it on the beginning of this year the breakage was unbearable. Currently TweakScale is on the LEGACY Module Manager support, and this is essentially "Good Luck, you are on your own", and virtually people coded their patches highly tied to a unstable point of equilibrium (trial and error until the thing works). When TweakScale got out of the LEGACY, everything came down as a castle of cards.

So, for now, what can be done is to use :NEEDS[TweakScale]:FINAL to simulate (sort of) the behaviour. When TweakScale 2.5 is on the wild, everybody will be able to use :AFTER[TweakScale] and this problem will be definitively solved for good.

[Lisias]

@SpannerMonkey , the problem of just using "%" on the patch is that you risk something like this:

@PART[MyFancyTurboprop]
{
    %MODULE[TweakScale]
    {
        %type = free
    }
}

ending up this way on cacheconfig

PART
{
   name = MyFancyTurboprop
    MODULE
    {
       name = TweakScale
        type = free
       defaultScale = 1.25
    }
}

And them you will have every single craft on your installment (including the flying ones) looking like this:

or this:

See Issue TweakScale/TweakScale#34 for details.

[Lisias]

As a workaround measure, I'm cooking hotfixes for some SM Add'Ons. I will update this issue as they are commited.

[Lisias]

SM_Armory HotFixes on commit TweakScale/TweakScale@d873214

[Lisias]

SM_Marine HotFixes on commit TweakScale/TweakScale@d674286