03:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> I really need help, I cannot seem to get the Secruity Token working for my 0.7 mod... I am even at that point where I cause client crashes while I try to connect :(
03:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> I would really appreciate if anyone could help me implement it, I know the logic behind it, heinrich told me the other day already, but I just cant get it to work...
03:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> also clients dont get inserted in network_conn::Feed instead in DirectInit? I just dont get how and why all is so different between the versions :/
12:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> @fokkonaut which part does already work? do you see the CONNECT messages of the client in the server? the CONNECTACCEPT in the client? or even the ACCEPT in the server?
16:44 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> @heinrich5991 my best result was that I got the connect and the accept from the client, tokens matching, but the weird part is that in ddnet the server tries to accept the client in the accept msg, and in 0.7 in the Connect msg which comes earlier from ddnet. So no matter what I tried, the best I could get was a "connecting" tee, but the client never rendered anything. I even caused client crashes xd. When i try to accept the client on th
16:44 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> I am just lost trying to do this
16:47 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Welf> again there are too many maps in maptesting, so new maps can't be added, idk if i should post that here
16:47 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Welf> again there are too many maps in maptesting, so new maps can't be added, idk if i should post that here or soemwhere else
16:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> @jao I guess?
16:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> @fokkonaut try to debug the connection process step by step. try to send a token back with the CONNECTACCEPT, and check whether you get a response back from the client
16:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> I obviously get, because the tokens match
16:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> then continue with the next message. do you get the next message?
17:00 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> which one is the next?
17:00 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> how would one go about finding that out?
17:00 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> i guess its the netmsg_info?
17:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I think so too
17:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> no wait
17:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> in ddnet its the clientver thing
17:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> in preauth state
17:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> oh yea, in new ddnet, true
17:01 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> so i need to take care of that too?
17:02 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> first you'd probably check whether the message even makes it to the relevant part of the server code
17:02 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> before trying anything further
17:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> always try small steps of things that definitely have to work
17:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> yea but I think I will not finish this working anyways... And if I get it the code is really ugly
17:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> What do you use DirectInit for? why not the normal path using Feed(
17:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> )
17:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> I have too many questions
17:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> you oculd treat it as a learning opportunity and try to understand the code
17:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> idk what DirectInit is either
17:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> it initializes the netconnection witout going through Feed to check the msgs again etc
17:06 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> I should maybe structure the Recv() part of network_server the same as in ddnet
17:06 <+bridge> [ddnet] <fokkonaut> with all the functions and Slot
17:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> the general code structure is relatively irrelevant if you understand what is sent over the network
17:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> It's rather difficult to work with when the code structure doesn't match what's send over the network
17:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> sent*
17:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I disagree here
17:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> the protocol is trivial to describe, it should fit fine into any code base
17:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> it's just three messages and only the last one causes state to change
17:20 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> eh, look at the mess that is the 0.7 compatibility
17:20 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> The token protocol of 0.7 doesn't match 0.6 at all and it sticks out like a sore thumb
17:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> example?
17:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> and can you explain the difference between the 0.6 and the 0.7 protocol here?
17:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> 0.6 sends CONNECT, CONNECTACCEPT, ACCEPT over the network
17:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> the 0.7 equivalent is TOKEN, TOKEN, CONNECT, CONNECTACCEPT <- okay, here's an extra step
17:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> but you only have to cut it short by one step for 0.6
17:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> if you start from 0.7
17:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> Well the fact that detecting 0.7 requires us to unpack the message first makes it even worse
17:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> but take a look at network_server.cpp where we had to unpack the packet twice
17:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> sounds like a problem with the code, not with the concept
17:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I think I described how to do it with unpacking only once
17:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> by pattern matching unconnected messages against 0.7 TOKEN and CONNECT, and treating the rest of the unconnected messages as 0.7
17:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> by pattern matching unconnected messages against 0.7 TOKEN and CONNECT, and treating the rest of the unconnected messages as 0.6
17:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> It'd take some very clever restructuring of the code to get it to look nice
17:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> not really
17:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> the point stands, the code doesn't match the protocol so it's a PITA to work with
17:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> Pattern matching is hardly cute
17:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> it's how e.g. the "ssh and https" on one port works
17:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> (which is a very ugly thing imho)
17:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> if you want to have it nice and clean you could do it on a second port
17:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> At which point the code would match the protocol we are handling but we'd get a lot of duplicated code in return, to fix that you'd need to clean up CNetBase and CNetServer a fair bit
17:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> otherwise something like pattern matching is practically required I think
17:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> what?
17:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> you can do the pattern matching very nicely
17:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> idk what you're talking about, it fits into the existing code. okay, call it unclean
17:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> Feel free to implement it, it's open source after all
17:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> why would I?
17:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> you just claimed some impossibility and I claim possibility and that means I have to implement something now?
17:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> I couldn't get it in there in a way that didn't make it look out of place, neither could timakro come up with a cleaner way to do it
17:32 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> I can do it in rust one day, when I wnat it there
17:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> I never claimed an impossibility, I just said "It's rather difficult" and that the "code ends up ugly"
17:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] <heinrich5991> would some pseudocode help?
17:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> Just because I couldn't get it clean obviously doesn't mean it's impossible, though I'm flattered you think that highly of me
17:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> @heinrich5991 sure, don't make it too abstract though
17:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Shyzo> bonjour hello hi, is it possible to add a feature to ddnet demo playing? So that you can rewind the demo? Or a "jump back 10sec" button?
17:42 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Shyzo> rewind= play backwards
17:43 <+bridge> [ddnet] <jao> it already exists
17:44 <+bridge> [ddnet] <jao> left and right arrow
17:44 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Shyzo> pro
17:44 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Shyzo> ty xD
17:44 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Shyzo> but rewind not in the client, right?
17:45 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Shyzo> oh is it possible to change the time that gets jumped by pressing the arrow? so I could maybe change from 5sec to 10sec
17:45 <+bridge> [ddnet] <jao> wdym
17:45 <+bridge> [ddnet] <jao> j and k for 10 sec
17:45 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Shyzo> playing the demo backwards
17:45 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Patiga> playing a demo backwards is not supported
17:45 <+bridge> [ddnet] <jao> or k and l
17:46 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Shyzo> alrighty :)) @Patiga plans to implement it?
17:46 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Patiga> rewinding -> going to an earlier timestamp is supported
17:46 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Shyzo> ye
17:46 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Patiga> i dont think its planned
17:47 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> playing backwards could be a fun coding challange 😄
17:47 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Shyzo> @jao what is the bind for 5 or 10sec jump? or cant I bind it to another key?
17:47 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Patiga> you could convert the demo and play the video backwards ^^
17:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Patiga> you can render a demo to mp4 in the client and play the video file backwards if that is your goal :)
17:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] <jao> you cant rebind it
17:48 <+bridge> [ddnet] <jao> i think its j and k for 10s jumps
17:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Shyzo> @Patiga ah nono I just like to rewind videos to see again what happened xD just preference over jumping to a certain point. but doesnt matter that much
17:51 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Shyzo> okay thank you :) 5 or 10sec jumps do that job just right. tyty
19:03 <+ChillerDragon> i think ddnet7 is not working anymore since https://github.com/teeworlds/teeworlds/commit/293209e7227c81e92b99c89890ebfdc264374a4a :/
19:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] <redix> That breaks the protocol extension
19:29 <+ChillerDragon> send help @redix :D
19:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> just remove ddnet7
19:36 <+bridge> [ddnet] <redix> Well that can be fixed without breaking compatibility. Oy probably didn't think/care about mods
19:39 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> Ofc not
19:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Learath2> Not even surprised
21:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] <Ryozuki> https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/mindsets-and-expectations/
21:40 <+bridge> [ddnet] <a gerdoe> jao added nouis
22:34 <+ChillerDragon> eh i always thought a bad harddrive means slow io ops but stuff like typing should be fast. but if the os is on a slow driver ervythign is slow huh?
22:35 <+ChillerDragon> i have like 10 fps while typing in my gnome terminal on tha old hdd i found in my basement xd
22:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] <abcqwerty> isnt typing input