Arms slayer_st APL bug
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Newbie friendliness
- 69/100
Research direction
The issue identifies the Arms slayer_st APL condition directly. Read the displayed Execute condition and check how its operators and Imminent Demise stack checks are interpreted; use the suggested equivalent conditions as a guide. Done means the condition matches the intended 0-or-2-stack cases, with the project’s relevant APL validation or tests passing.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Describe the bug
I think there may be a bug in the current Arms APL
actions.slayer_st+=/execute,if=buff.sudden_death.stack=2|cooldown.bladestorm.ready&(!buff.imminent_demise.stack=1|!buff.imminent_demise.stack=3)
Looks like it is intended to use Execute before a Bladestorm when Imminent Demise is not at 1 or 3 stacks — i.e. at 0 or 2 stacks. That would make sense with Unhinged, since going 0 to 1 or 2 to 3 adds an extra Unhinged Mortal
However, because ! has higher priority than =, I believe !buff.imminent_demise.stack=1 is parsed as (!buff.imminent_demise.stack)=1 rather than !(buff.imminent_demise.stack=1)
As a result, the second part of the condition effectively only succeeds at 0 Imminent Demise stacks, and the 2 to 3 case is missed
Expected behavior
If the intended logic is "Execute when Bladestorm is ready and Imminent Demise is 0 or 2", I think this should be written as either:
cooldown.bladestorm.ready&(buff.imminent_demise.stack=0|buff.imminent_demise.stack=2)
or:
cooldown.bladestorm.ready&!(buff.imminent_demise.stack=1|buff.imminent_demise.stack=3)
- Dominant language
- C++
- Stars
- 1.6k
- Forks
- 789
- Avg merge
- 13h 25m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 52
Getting set up
- Ships a Dockerfile or Docker Compose file
- No pull request template
- Read the contributing guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from simulationcraft/simc
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
simulationcraft/simc#11973 · 1 comment ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 3/5 1-2 days Newbie friendliness 45/100
simulationcraft/simc#11935 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 3/5 1-2 days Newbie friendliness 68/100
simulationcraft/simc#11918 · 1 comment ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 45/100
simulationcraft/simc#11845 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 3/5 1-2 days Newbie friendliness 48/100
simulationcraft/simc#11752 · 1 comment ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
All issues in simulationcraft/simc
Similar issues
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
cython/cython#8110 · 2 comments ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
PR bot doesn't recognize hip-tests as a unit test directoryPossibly taken A pull request linked to this issue is open or already merged. Open
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
ROCm/rocm-systems#14923 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 2 days
-
arrays asr pass bug ICE intrinsic medium priority
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Area: World-Readiness
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 90/100
microsoft/calculator#2522 ·
-
missing `catch.hpp`Open
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
microsoft/inflatelib#34 · 1 comment ·