Dont provide ITEM_HANDLER for Inventory instances #88
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
niklaswimmer
force-pushed
the
no-caps-for-inventories
branch
from
ef784cb to
aa38007
Compare
FFAPI's job is only to bridge implementation of the Fabric transfer API to the capability system, nothing more. Fabric's own lookup API considers Inventory instances to be a valid Storage because otherwise it would have no compat with Vanilla inventories. Forge however chose a different path by explicitly providing capability providers for selected Vanilla blocks. As such it is Forge's responsibility to bridge Vanilla blocks to the capability system and not ours by accidentally making everything that implements Inventory provide an ITEM_HANDLER capability. Fixes Sinytra#87 Signed-off-by: Niklas Wimmer <[email protected]>
niklaswimmer
force-pushed
the
no-caps-for-inventories
branch
from
aa38007 to
d456073
Compare
Signed-off-by: Niklas Wimmer <[email protected]>
|
Just realized it does not really matter for the composter, because it has no BE, so we will never have the chance for attaching a cap to it... |
Su5eD
approved these changes
Dec 29, 2023
RainbowTabitha
added a commit
to RainbowTabitha/ReForgifiedFabricAPI
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2024
…" This fixes $158. This reverts commit b00938e.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
FFAPI's job is only to bridge implementation of the Fabric transfer API to the capability system, nothing more (at least I see it this way).
Fabric's own lookup API considers
Inventoryinstances to be a validStoragebecause otherwise it would have no compat with Vanilla inventories. Forge however chose a different path by explicitly providing capability providers for selected Vanilla blocks. As such it is Forge's responsibility to bridge Vanilla blocks to the capability system and not ours by accidentally making everything that implementsInventoryprovide anITEM_HANDLERcapability.This change only affects Forge mods that try to access inventories of Fabric Mods. This will now only work if the Fabric Mod explicitly provides a
Storageimplementation or implementsSidedStorageBlockEntity. I think this is fine, because really that is how Fabric mods should use the transfer API, right?Fabric mods that access inventories via
ItemStorage.SIDEDwill have the same semantics as before. I was thinking however, that we should maybe move the item handler capability to be the first fallback - in case Forge provides an item handler for a Vanilla block that implementsInventory. Thoughts @Su5eD?Fixes #87