Takes the port branch up to77320d5e-- the state the human play-tested on 2026-09-02 -- for SOURCE paths only. Not a branch merge: `auto/port-p6-audio` is 366 commits and 938 files, and most of that must not land. WHAT COMES IN (76 files, all human-confirmed working): * the logo splash animation.08ed3dd1found it: `pose_at` ASSIGNED the settle instant instead of clamping to it, so the splash never animated at all -- and the same bug manufactured a passing harness result, because the harness photographed t past the settle. Confirmed by play-test: "cannot notice any obvious difference from the actual game." * gamepad input -- (A)/(B) bound additively (`ui_accept` ships with NO joypad binding), stick latched with hysteresis at the game's own 61% digitise threshold. This is what made (A), video-skip and Extras work at all. * menu navigation and flow, menu audio, the exporter, the authored declarations, and 23 verification tools under tools/port/. WHAT IS DELIBERATELY LEFT ON THE BRANCH: * everything afterc0ae460a-- the F5/F6 title-timing investigation, whose own tip commit calls itself a "hand-off for one-minute human checks". Unchecked by definition; it goes through the new review gate like anything else. * the OPTIONS menu work of 2026-09-03. Real, probably good, NOT play-tested. * the F1 repeat mechanism, which its own commit calls "deliberately inert". WHAT MUST NOT LAND, AND WHY THE .gitignore CHANGED: 545 MB of extracted game content was committed on that branch -- 850 sprite, audio and transcoded video files under `export-probe/` and `export-probe2/`, plus 246 MB of loose .wav and .tsv at the repo root. This repository's own rule, in this file, is "never game content". The rule was not missing. It was written, and it was tightened on that very branch, with a careful comment explaining why BOTH `export/` and `data/base/` had to be listed -- while the exporter was writing to a third name that nobody had thought to list. Enumerating names is the thing that failed. So the ignore rules now describe the SHAPE: any top-level `export*/`, game media by extension, and loose capture output at the root. Verified both ways -- it catches all four offenders and ignores nothing currently tracked. Verified: `cargo check --workspace` clean; all nine GDScript files parse in project context, with a positive control (an injected syntax error is detected, 3 lines) so the clean result means something. `tools/port/check-all` was NOT run -- it needs the container, the export tree and a display.
88 lines
4.7 KiB
Rust
88 lines
4.7 KiB
Rust
//! Test the Decoder's UNTESTED reading of a residual they recorded as odd.
|
|
//!
|
|
//! `GP_DIALOG` holds 140 entries against a 70-record dialog table — a 2:1 ratio
|
|
//! that would make the id→entry join an ordering question. It does not hold:
|
|
//! adjacent pairing gives identical element-name sets on **2 of 65** pairs,
|
|
//! halves pairing on **0**. In `GP_TITLE` a language pair shares its element set
|
|
//! exactly, so identical sets are the signature there and almost nothing matches
|
|
//! here.
|
|
//!
|
|
//! The residual: the only two adjacent pairs that DO match are entries `0/1` and
|
|
//! `2/3` — and `2/3` is the DIFFICULTY build. Their plausible reading is that
|
|
//! dialog text is baked into language-specific sprites, so EN/JP entries differ
|
|
//! by construction. ⚠️ **They flagged it as untested and did not assert it**, and
|
|
//! it has a hole they named themselves: it would explain the 63 that differ and
|
|
//! leave the 2 that match needing their own explanation.
|
|
//!
|
|
//! This prints what the differences actually look like, so the reading is judged
|
|
//! against the names rather than accepted as plausible.
|
|
use sylpheed_formats::{pak, ratc, ui_layout};
|
|
use std::collections::BTreeSet;
|
|
|
|
fn main() {
|
|
let root = std::env::var("SYLPHEED_DISC").unwrap_or_else(|_| "/disc".into());
|
|
let ar = pak::PakArchive::open(format!("{root}/dat/GP_DIALOG.pak")).expect("GP_DIALOG.pak");
|
|
let sets: Vec<Option<BTreeSet<String>>> = ar.entries().iter().map(|e| {
|
|
let by = ar.read(e).ok()?;
|
|
if !ratc::is_ratc(&by) { return None }
|
|
let b = ui_layout::parse_build(&by)?;
|
|
Some(b.elements.iter().map(|el| el.name.clone()).collect())
|
|
}).collect();
|
|
|
|
let (mut same, mut diff, mut pairs) = (0usize, 0usize, 0usize);
|
|
let mut shown = 0;
|
|
for i in (0..sets.len().saturating_sub(1)).step_by(2) {
|
|
let (Some(a), Some(b)) = (&sets[i], &sets[i + 1]) else { continue };
|
|
pairs += 1;
|
|
if a == b {
|
|
same += 1;
|
|
println!(" entries {i:>3}/{:<3} IDENTICAL sets, {} element(s)", i + 1, a.len());
|
|
continue;
|
|
}
|
|
diff += 1;
|
|
// The stage-dialog pairs, checked by name and by SPRITE COUNT. A
|
|
// translation of one dialog carries the same amount of text; a
|
|
// different stage does not. This is the Decoder's closing evidence for
|
|
// the 37 pairs that differ WITHOUT a button-count mismatch, re-derived
|
|
// here because it settles a bound I had recorded as unlikely to be
|
|
// tested -- and saying so is what got it tested.
|
|
if (10..=15).contains(&i) {
|
|
let sp = |x: &BTreeSet<String>| x.iter().filter(|n| n.ends_with(".t32")).count();
|
|
let stage = |x: &BTreeSet<String>| -> Vec<String> {
|
|
let mut v: Vec<String> = x.iter().filter_map(|n| n.strip_prefix("pzstg")
|
|
.and_then(|r| r.get(..2)).map(|s| s.to_string())).collect();
|
|
v.sort(); v.dedup(); v
|
|
};
|
|
println!(" entries {i:>3}/{:<3} stages {:?} vs {:?} sprites {} vs {}",
|
|
i + 1, stage(a), stage(b), sp(a), sp(b));
|
|
}
|
|
if shown < 3 {
|
|
shown += 1;
|
|
let only_a: Vec<_> = a.difference(b).cloned().collect();
|
|
let only_b: Vec<_> = b.difference(a).cloned().collect();
|
|
println!(" entries {i:>3}/{:<3} differ: {} only-in-first, {} only-in-second",
|
|
i + 1, only_a.len(), only_b.len());
|
|
println!(" first : {:?}", &only_a[..only_a.len().min(4)]);
|
|
println!(" second : {:?}", &only_b[..only_b.len().min(4)]);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
// 🔴 THE DECISIVE DETAIL, not the impressionistic one. Two languages of one
|
|
// dialog cannot differ in BUTTON COUNT. If adjacent entries do, they are
|
|
// different dialogs and the whole adjacent-pairing premise is wrong -- which
|
|
// is a stronger statement than "the language reading is untested".
|
|
let btns = |s: &Option<BTreeSet<String>>| -> usize {
|
|
s.as_ref().map_or(0, |x| x.iter().filter(|n| n.contains("btn")).count())
|
|
};
|
|
let mut mismatched = 0;
|
|
for i in (0..sets.len().saturating_sub(1)).step_by(2) {
|
|
if sets[i].is_none() || sets[i + 1].is_none() { continue }
|
|
if btns(&sets[i]) != btns(&sets[i + 1]) { mismatched += 1 }
|
|
}
|
|
println!("\n adjacent pairs whose BUTTON COUNTS differ: {mismatched}");
|
|
println!(" A language pair cannot. Every one of these is two different dialogs.");
|
|
println!("\n {pairs} adjacent pair(s): {same} identical, {diff} differing");
|
|
println!(" Their reading -- text baked into language-specific sprites -- predicts");
|
|
println!(" the differing names look SYSTEMATIC (a locale suffix, a parallel set).");
|
|
println!(" Judge it against the names above rather than against its plausibility.");
|
|
}
|