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

feat(): Begin bedrock support #85

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from
Closed

feat(): Begin bedrock support #85

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

ATXLtheAxolotl
Copy link

@ATXLtheAxolotl ATXLtheAxolotl commented Jan 11, 2023

There are three issues with this PR that I know of atm:

  • The information about items in minecraft-data is outdated/incorrect, for example glass being identified as crimson_nylium.
  • The spawnEggMobName getter will not work correctly because the spawn egg display name isn't stored in the nbt and we can't rely on the inaccurate data for the spawn egg name.
  • This PR relies on add(): Add more features to features.json minecraft-data#667

Hopefully this PR can help knock off another thing in this list.

@extremeheat
Copy link
Member

Incorrect for what version ? Item IDs are not static on bedrock

@ATXLtheAxolotl
Copy link
Author

Ohhhh I’m sorry I thought they were just set incorrectly that’s my bad.

@extremeheat
Copy link
Member

To implement items for bedrock there will first need to be a PR to prismarine-registry to load the items.

Since most of the functions in prismarine-item fetch data from the NBT and since there's probably naming differences in the NBT data, it may also make sense to have a separate Item class for bedrock to keep things clean (anvil implementation can probably be kept as is with some feature flags).

@ATXLtheAxolotl
Copy link
Author

Alright thank you for the clarification, I saw in your post that that prismarine-registry bedrock support was needed but I didn’t understand why until now.

@CreeperG16 CreeperG16 mentioned this pull request Mar 2, 2023
18 tasks
@rom1504
Copy link
Member

rom1504 commented Mar 4, 2023

what is the status of this ?

@rom1504
Copy link
Member

rom1504 commented Jul 22, 2023

we merged #86

@rom1504 rom1504 closed this Jul 22, 2023
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants