[savior]

TreeBot shouldn't throw an UnsupportedOperationException if a child of a branch is null, in trees of graph theory, not having a right or left subtree is legal too.
If failureTask() returns null as an example, it should be obvious that the respective branch simply has no failure task.
So if a child is null i would suppose it getting treated as an empty leaf instead.

 

[defeat3d]

Support!

 

[infinite inferno]

Support!

 

[gengsta]

Great suggestion Savior. Support!

 

[defeat3d]

Jungler!

 

[chris121]

rejected and closed not for further discussion

 

[qverkk]

Need an support, i'll adc

 

[a savage]

I'm mid fuck off.

 

[savior]

can this please not get hijacked into a fucking lol thread

 

[glitch_]

Why not just return the root Branch? It's the equivalent of an empty leaf..

 

[savior]

Why not just return the root Branch? It's the equivalent of an empty leaf..

Because its a tree

 

[wet rag]

Because its a tree

when your thread turns into a shit fest

 

[glitch_]

Because its a tree

Is there something I'm missing here? createRootBranch --> custom extension of RootBranch ... bot runs into empty leaf -> return your RootBranch to restart.

is there an issue with doing it that way (minus not having the delay)

 

[party]

That's not the issue he's getting at.

 

[slashnhax]

By linking back to your root, you'll create a cycle, which you don't really want to do. I assume it was done the way it is to try to encourage authors to balance the tree rather than having one which is heavily weighted to a side.

 

[savior]

By linking back to your root, you'll create a cycle, which you don't really want to do. I assume it was done the way it is to try to encourage authors to balance the tree rather than having one which is heavily weighted to a side.

Got the point, but i suppose devs are just using an empty leaf task instead.

 

[glitch_]

Got the point, but i suppose devs are just using an empty leaf task instead.

LeafTask emptyLeaf = new LeafTask() {@Override public void execute() {});

Easiest way if you haven't already, instead of making new class.

 

[savior]

LeafTask emptyLeaf = new LeafTask() {@Override public void execute() {});

Easiest way if you haven't already, instead of making new class.

Yeah thank you i know how to make an empty LeafTask, but my point is using a leaftask that does nothing is pretty much equivalent to a null child, which should get represented as null. In a tree you wouldnt want any nodes with null as content, but rather let the node itself be null.

 

[slashnhax]

Yeah thank you i know how to make an empty LeafTask, but my point is using a leaftask that does nothing is pretty much equivalent to a null child, which should get represented as null. In a tree you wouldnt want any nodes with null as content, but rather let the node itself be null.

Tbh I'm torn each way, although I am leaning towards allowing null sub-nodes... @Party @Cloud opinions?

 

[party]

Tbh I'm torn each way, although I am leaning towards allowing null sub-nodes... @Party @Cloud opinions?

I'm the opposite, I wouldn't mind the idea but I'm definitely leaning in favour of restriction. In my opinion if you're going to have a branch with a null sub-node, that branch should be replaced by a leaf.