Conversation
|
👍🏼 |
|
|
Protocol seems okay at first glance. May take a closer look later. Data does not seem correct. How was this generated? |
I used Burger and the burger-data-extractor for some of it, but Burger doesn't seem to work for a lot of 1.20, so then I used the minecraft-data-generator-server and for the loot tables I used the jar-extractor repo. I'm not too sure how to validate it, what can I validate it against? For protocol.json I just used wiki.vg |
Which data seems incorrect? All of it? |
The presence of material.json leads me to believe the extraction method is flawed. Might just be the material related data that is incorrect. Haven't dug that deep into the files. |
If you're referring to the fact Material class was removed, mc-data-generator-server doesn't seem to actually use the removed Material class to generate that data, it did however use the Material class for something to do with gourds and one other item which I had to modify although I did just make the change in GitPod and may have done something wrong and I can't remember if that was related to extracting the material data. |
It's not that the Material class is removed. It's the entire concept of materials that is removed in favour of tags and more verbose block declarations. |
So do you think materials.json should just be deleted? That data was generated from the 1.20 server |
Not necessarily. Just need someone to verify the generator server does indeed infer the materials (which is now plainly a prismarine construct) correct. Make a PR on the generator server repo with your updates |
|
Can you post the diff between 1.19.4 and 1.20 protocol as a comment so
people may verify against wiki.vg and the decompiled code
…On Thu, Jun 15, 2023, 09:29 Frej Alexander Nielsen ***@***.***> wrote:
It's not that the Material class is removed. It's the entire concept of
materials that is removed in favour of tags and more verbose block
declarations.
So do you think materials.json should just be deleted? That data was
generated from the 1.20 server
Not necessarily. Just need someone to verify the generator server does
indeed infer the materials (which is now plainly a prismarine construct)
correct.
Make a PR on the generator server repo with your updates
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#721 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAR437U35VBIUDSJ2QZDD4DXLK2XFANCNFSM6AAAAAAZG2UZMU>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Another thing you can do for validation is open a PR in
node-minecraft-protocol similar to the 1.19.4 one that will use this mc
data PR to see if the tests pass.
Then same for mineflayer
…On Thu, Jun 15, 2023, 09:38 Romain Beaumont ***@***.***> wrote:
Can you post the diff between 1.19.4 and 1.20 protocol as a comment so
people may verify against wiki.vg and the decompiled code
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023, 09:29 Frej Alexander Nielsen <
***@***.***> wrote:
> It's not that the Material class is removed. It's the entire concept of
> materials that is removed in favour of tags and more verbose block
> declarations.
>
> So do you think materials.json should just be deleted? That data was
> generated from the 1.20 server
>
> Not necessarily. Just need someone to verify the generator server does
> indeed infer the materials (which is now plainly a prismarine construct)
> correct.
>
> Make a PR on the generator server repo with your updates
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#721 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAR437U35VBIUDSJ2QZDD4DXLK2XFANCNFSM6AAAAAAZG2UZMU>
> .
> You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Protocol.json diff between 1.19.4 and 1.20
diff --git "minecraft-data\\data\\pc\\1.19.4\\protocol.json" "minecraft-data\\data\\pc\\1.20\\protocol.json"
index 057a5ab..780374f 100644
--- "minecraft-data\\data\\pc\\1.19.4\\protocol.json"
+++ "minecraft-data\\data\\pc\\1.20\\protocol.json"
@@ -1951,6 +1951,10 @@
]
}
]
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "sendsTelemtryData",
+ "type": "bool"
}
]
]
@@ -2330,10 +2334,6 @@
]
]
},
- {
- "name": "suppressLightUpdates",
- "type": "bool"
- },
{
"name": "records",
"type": [
@@ -2700,10 +2700,6 @@
}
]
},
- {
- "name": "trustEdges",
- "type": "bool"
- },
{
"name": "skyLightMask",
"type": [
@@ -2864,10 +2860,6 @@
"name": "chunkZ",
"type": "varint"
},
- {
- "name": "trustEdges",
- "type": "bool"
- },
{
"name": "skyLightMask",
"type": [
@@ -3033,6 +3025,10 @@
]
]
]
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "portalCooldown",
+ "type": "varint"
}
]
],
@@ -3352,6 +3348,10 @@
{
"name": "location",
"type": "position"
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "isFrontText",
+ "type": "bool"
}
]
],
@@ -3477,10 +3477,6 @@
{
"name": "duration",
"type": "varint"
- },
- {
- "name": "entityId",
- "type": "i32"
}
]
],
@@ -3495,10 +3491,6 @@
"name": "playerId",
"type": "varint"
},
- {
- "name": "entityId",
- "type": "i32"
- },
{
"name": "message",
"type": "string"
@@ -4115,6 +4107,10 @@
]
]
]
+ },
+ {
+ "name": "portalCooldown",
+ "type": "varint"
}
]
],
@@ -6478,6 +6474,10 @@
"name": "location",
"type": "position"
},
+ {
+ "name": "isFrontText",
+ "type": "bool"
+ },
{
"name": "text1",
"type": "string"
Done: https://github.com/PrismarineJS/minecraft-data/pull/721/files#r1230896977 |
|
Protocol is good |
|
For some reason the minecraft:smithing_trim recipe in the 1.19.4 data is wrong, I imagine that's something that should be corrected (reference: https://wiki.vg/index.php?title=Protocol&oldid=18242#Update_Recipes) |
| "particles": "pc/1.20", | ||
| "blockLoot": "pc/1.20", | ||
| "entityLoot": "pc/1.20", | ||
| "loginPacket": "pc/1.19.2", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is likely to be needed for mineflayer
|
thanks |
3 participants
1.20.1 is just bug fixes that don't affect the data I believe so just changing version.json was needed for that (hopefully unless Mojang did something weird, I didn't thoroughly compare 1.20.1 data against 1.20)