Docs: explicitly document why get_filler_item_name may return non-IC.filler items, despite its name #5747
+6
−1
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What is this fixing or adding?
Clearing up some longstanding confusion around
get_filler_item_namenot always returning (the name(s) of)filleritem(s). I don't have a better idea for the method's name, and my understanding is that renaming methods is very difficult in this project anyway, but we can make the docstring more explicit about the method's real contract.This proposed text reflects my understanding of this method based on past conversations such as https://discord.com/channels/731205301247803413/1214608557077700720/1365116330625204295 where veteran devs explicitly draw a distinction between "filler" the ItemClassification and "filler" that get_filler_item_name() is trying to generate.
I thought of doing this today because starting at https://discord.com/channels/731205301247803413/1214608557077700720/1450025033266233377 there was a semi-heated discussion of this same familiar confusion, which appeared to include a number of incorrect assertions that
get_filler_item_namedoes always returnfiller(though even its default implementation doesn't).How was this tested?
reading
If this makes graphical changes, please attach screenshots.
N/A