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

MSPT 300+ OVER (getScriptEngine) [DEV BUILD 184] #138

Open
GG-MD opened this issue Sep 6, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

MSPT 300+ OVER (getScriptEngine) [DEV BUILD 184] #138

GG-MD opened this issue Sep 6, 2024 · 6 comments

Comments

@GG-MD
Copy link

GG-MD commented Sep 6, 2024

Spark: https://spark.lucko.me/qUP0rMRHEG

@iGabyTM
Copy link
Member

iGabyTM commented Sep 6, 2024

Don't use the js requirement unless you must.
There's built-in types for the most basic requirements. Keep js as the last option.

@GG-MD
Copy link
Author

GG-MD commented Sep 6, 2024

Don't use the js requirement unless you must. There's built-in types for the most basic requirements. Keep js as the last option.

This was not previously the case, will this be optimized in the future?????

@iGabyTM
Copy link
Member

iGabyTM commented Sep 6, 2024

I'm not saying it is ok for the js requirement to take up this much resources. What I'm saying is that you should not use the js requirement if there is already a dedicated requirement for what you want. For example %vault_eco_balance% > 500 can be written as a requirement with type > (see the wiki)

@GG-MD
Copy link
Author

GG-MD commented Sep 7, 2024

I'm not saying it is ok for the js requirement to take up this much resources. What I'm saying is that you should not use the js requirement if there is already a dedicated requirement for what you want. For example %vault_eco_balance% > 500 can be written as a requirement with type > (see the wiki)

Everything that DeluxeMenus supports is 100% utilized, unfortunately what is not possible already works via JavaScript, very much waiting for updates.

@BlitzOffline
Copy link
Member

Don't use the js requirement unless you must. There's built-in types for the most basic requirements. Keep js as the last option.

This was not previously the case, will this be optimized in the future?????

We use an out of the box engine. We do not have our own engine. If something changed, it wasn't because of us and most likely it isn't something we can fix unfortunately. We will look into this when we have time.

@GG-MD
Copy link
Author

GG-MD commented Sep 19, 2024

Don't use the js requirement unless you must. There's built-in types for the most basic requirements. Keep js as the last option.

This was not previously the case, will this be optimized in the future?????

We use an out of the box engine. We do not have our own engine. If something changed, it wasn't because of us and most likely it isn't something we can fix unfortunately. We will look into this when we have time.

The problem is yours - on older builds of your plugin everything was perfect, the most recent build currently showing a much better result, but still not perfect.

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

3 participants