(mrnightox) Other Command Arguments
#(mrnightox) Other Command Arguments
cedar smeltBOT
Hi I'm AutoThreadBot! Don't mind me, I'll just be adding the helper team to this thread so they can see it. A human will get to you soon.
hot shard
That's very old syntax (and not sure if that if check was ever valid? if it was then you'd use something like the in operator today)
!g updates since
paper groveBOT
!g updates since
hot shard
That guide pages has most relevent big syntax changes ^
molten sable
yeah that if never would've worked
molten sable
it did not
knotty pelican
it did for sure, we used it without any issues two years ago
molten sable
it's weird how many times i've had this conversation
with various random people
i'll cut to the end of it:
it didn't work
you had a different script, that did work
it's not the one you just posted, you randomly edited and broke the thing you posted
presumably where those XXXXXXXXX you pasted are, there used to be something else entirely that you tried to hide, maybe a password by the way you wrote it? weird way to impl that but whatever - you chopped off more than just the password you deleted a chunk of the actual script too and didn't notice
as a result you're showing us a script that you insist works, but you didn't actually test whether this script worked, and we're telling you it didn't work because it definitely didn't
you also slightly misremembered the timeline because Denizen has been around literally over 10 years and I guarantee that type of syntax was deprecated a little longer ago than 2022 lol. That syntax is at least 5+ years old, closer to the 10 year mark, not sure exactly offhand. Technically might've worked for a while after but your console would've been flooded with warnings begging you to update
actual important thing that matters is just follow the guide and make sure to go back to the Background/Setup section to find the info about setting up the script editor which has automatic syntax checking and other handy features like that
knotty pelican
it didn't work
https://paste.denizenscript.com/View/119517 just for your reference, this worked fine without issues but indeed, there was a warning on startup telling the format was changed, but still it worked two years ago
XXXXXPW1 and XXXXXPW2 are placeholders, since I don't want to paste the actual keyword in this channel.
hot shard
if <context.args.first> == 'XXXXXPW1' || 'XXXXXPW2' Isn't valid syntax - on old versions it would've likely worked but errored, only doing the <context.args.first> == 'XXXXXPW1' check; on modern versions it's technically valid because it'll do the <context.args.first> == 'XXXXXPW1' check and then check if 'XXXXXPW2' is truthy.
It never would actually compare the arg to both strings, and likely worked but errored on the invalid check on older versions? and technically works without error on modern versions but still doesn't compare the first arg like that
knotty pelican
`if <context.args.first> == 'XXXXXPW1' || 'XXXXXPW2'` Isn't valid syntax - on ol...
thanks for your help! I made it work again but I want to confirm, this is fine? .. https://paste.denizenscript.com/View/119529 the format will not change any time soon again?
pastel lantern
The best way to verify if this is "fine", is to check your console while you're testing this command.
Syntax wise it looks fine.
past turtleBOT
@knotty pelican