-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
tabcomplete: emotes vs usernames #62
Comments
I can fix this to satisfy the following conditions:
Is that what you're looking for? The sort function already contains the logic for this but it just places emotes first regardless of usage because of an early return. I'm wondering what |
The Otherwise I'm not sure atm, but this should be good https://github.com/MemeLabs/Rustla2/wiki/Chat-Autocomplete |
While you are looking at this code, maybe #109 could be done too? |
I have a fix for that already I'll post it soon 👍. I tried looking into #19 too but I can't track that behaviour down. The custom order thing makes sense. So with that wiki description I think the 2nd, 3rd and 4th conditions posted above satisfy. So in the case of both a user and emote being untabbed, is it expected for the emote to come first rather than a user? |
I think so, yeah. Because you don't know an unknown user, but you probably know a lot of emotes you haven't tabbed recently. There might be something about giving a user that wrote in chat recently preference over an unused emote but that might've caused trouble, don't remember. The Wiki should have everything I knew when I was thinking about this a lot |
emote(s) always take preference (even if not used lately) before users (even if recently tabbed) currently. Expected: tabbed users should be before un-tabbed emotes.
Making tabbed users a preference before tabbed emotes might also be worth considering since you probably care more about the user once you talk, but it's an inconsistency vs. the un-tabbed case...
In the new dev-chat this can be seen by tabbing "pepo" (there are various emotes, and 2 users by that prefix).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: