Skip to content
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

Incorrect time for string representation of events for LOTV replays #130

Open
BurnySc2 opened this issue Oct 8, 2020 · 1 comment
Open

Comments

@BurnySc2
Copy link

BurnySc2 commented Oct 8, 2020

This is kind of a non-issue but the string representation for events for LOTV replays seem incorrect.
I parsed a replay that was 11:54 long, but the events go up to 16:25.

Origin of 'bug'

return "{0}\t{1:<15} ".format(Length(seconds=int(self.frame / 16)), player_name)

Solution proposal

The frames have to be divided by 22.4 instead of by 16. But this fix only works for LOTV replays, it would again show the wrong time for WOL and HOTS replays.

PS:
I want to let you know that your repository / fork cannot be searched through the github-repository search function (e.g. cant search for class names). This is simply because it is a fork.
If you want to change that and remove the fork-link, you can write a short support ticket to github to lift the connection and it becomes searchable.
Also, google search results don't seem to show this repo when searching for ggtracker sc2reader - unsure why this is (it works in the search engine duckduckgo.com).

@StoicLoofah
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for bringing this up. I looked through the code, and we actually have 16 hardcoded in a lot of places that would be difficult to pass the appropriate context through for.

I wonder if we should use 22.4 anyways since the vast majority of replays now are LotV. We should probably swap it for a constant or a function call or something to make it a little more robust if we do have a better fix.

And thanks fo rhte tip on the forking thing. I'll see what I can do about that!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants