Fix/mop group marker context 18414 - #8
Conversation
mangos-four restored 5.4.8 raid markers, giving Group::SetTargetIcon a fourth `uint8 context` parameter (id, whoGuid, targetGuid, context). The Lua binding still called the pre-MoP 3-arg overload, breaking the mangos-four build (error C2660: SetTargetIcon does not take 3 arguments). Add a mangos-MISTS arm passing context 0 (a normal target-icon set, matching GroupHandler's default path). Classic/TBC (2-arg) and WotLK/Cata (3-arg) arms are unchanged, so the shared Eluna keeps building for every core. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 9a88d15a03
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| #elif defined(ELUNA_MANGOS) && ELUNA_EXPANSION == EXP_MISTS | ||
| // MoP (mangos-four) restored raid markers with a fourth "context" argument on | ||
| // Group::SetTargetIcon; 0 selects a normal target-icon set (see GroupHandler). | ||
| group->SetTargetIcon(icon, setter, target, 0); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When building against the mangos-four 0.17 / 18414 core, Group::SetTargetIcon is declared and called by GroupHandler with three parameters (uint8, ObjectGuid, ObjectGuid), so this MoP-only four-argument call has no matching overload and prevents the supported MoP target from compiling. Please keep the MoP branch on the existing (icon, setter, target) call unless it is guarded for a core revision that actually has the context parameter.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
This change is