Added more/better/worse checkin for cross referencing data types
This commit is contained in:
parent
c6d4a115bc
commit
709f07e610
@ -303,6 +303,8 @@ public class Disguise {
|
||||
} catch (Exception ex) {
|
||||
// Ok.. So it aint a horse
|
||||
}
|
||||
Class entityClass = Values.getEntityClass(DisguiseType.getType(getEntity().getType()));
|
||||
Class disguiseClass = Values.getEntityClass(getType());
|
||||
HashMap<Integer, Object> disguiseValues = Values.getMetaValues(getType());
|
||||
HashMap<Integer, Object> entityValues = Values.getMetaValues(DisguiseType.getType(entity.getType()));
|
||||
// Start from 2 as they ALL share 0 and 1
|
||||
@ -339,6 +341,11 @@ public class Disguise {
|
||||
// Hmm. They both now have data values which are exactly the same. I need to do more intensive background checks.
|
||||
// I HAVE to find juicy gossip on these!
|
||||
// Maybe if I check that they extend each other..
|
||||
// Seeing as I only store the finished forms of entitys. This should raise no problems and allow for more shared
|
||||
// datawatchers.
|
||||
if (entityClass.isInstance(disguiseClass) || disguiseClass.isInstance(entityClass))
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
|
||||
// Entity is 0 & 1 - But we aint gonna be checking that
|
||||
// EntityAgeable is 16
|
||||
// EntityInsentient is 10 & 11
|
||||
@ -361,8 +368,7 @@ public class Disguise {
|
||||
break;
|
||||
}
|
||||
// If they both extend the same base class. They OBVIOUSLY share the same datavalue. Right..?
|
||||
if (owningData != null && Values.getEntityClass(getType()).isInstance(owningData)
|
||||
&& Values.getEntityClass(DisguiseType.getType(entity.getType())).isInstance(owningData))
|
||||
if (owningData != null && disguiseClass.isInstance(owningData) && entityClass.isInstance(owningData))
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
// Well I can't find a reason I should leave it alone. They will probably conflict.
|
||||
// Time to set the value to the disguises value so no conflicts!
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user