COMMITTED: Augmentation Inventory Container - Fix lag lore item deletion defect.

[l0stmancd]

Reviewed change - off hand I do not see an issue.

Will do a full test on the augmentation sealer and the bird bath later today and post findings.

[l0stmancd]

Hi Trevius,

Spent about 30 minutes testing the change today. Everything seems good in the code as it is except maybe fixing the indent on the "itemOneToPush = tobe_auged->Clone()" unless this was introduced just on the forums when you posted.

Testing conducted in both aug pool + aug inventory container:
Augment / Deaugmenting with lore sword / augment in different slots each time.
Introduced server lag and was able to still augment / deaugment without an issue.

NOTE: there is still the chance to cause client oddities if a user calls the augment procedure, the server lags out, and then a client picks up one of the items in the augmentation pool / inventory. This has always been here and is present for tradeskills also so I dont think its something to worry about. Just mentioning it to be complete. Very rare that this would happen. Wish there was a way to stop the user from taking items out of a pack / container after they send the client command for combine or aug. Not to stop hackers but to stop legit people who may make a mistake when the server is lagging.

NOTE: Was able to get into one of the areas that you have marked "// Less than 2 items in the augmentation device ... in case of a hack ..." It is actually pretty easy to get in here if the server lags out long enough for you to press the augment/deaugment button twice. You have a note saying you may wish to kick a user due to sync issues - would not necessarily suggest kicking a user in that case as the server could be (in another thread) about to pass down the users newly augmented items. You don't have a user->Kick() call (this was just a note you made) but wanted to mention it.

Your other area above it ("Either 2 augmentable items found or none found") - yeah, I cannot think of a single way that this could be done legitimately. Would not be a bad thing to either kick() or log to the hackers table but, frankly, I dont see a harm in leaving it the way you have it.

Everything seems good.

[trevius]

Thanks for reviewing and testing that

I will get it on my server and then put it on the SVN if no issues. I will just remove the comments about kicking users, as it doesn't seem to be needed. If there are any other item loss issues, they are probably related to something else like SwapItem, or something else that the client handles a bit differently than the server.