Cockatrice: bad name choice for !setnumber!

[tooomm]

see: https://github.com/Cockatrice/Cockatrice/pull/1921#issuecomment-220785141

I don't like the naming at all... it's very confusing!
Why don't we use cardnumber?
All placeholders with "set" are related to actual sets... this isn't. It's not a number of a set, it's a number of a card in a set.

[ctrlaltca]

I agree the current name could be improved. The correct wording would be something like "alphanumeric code identifying the specific card inside the set it has been published", but we'd better keep the name short so "cardnumber" is a good candidate.
I'd keep the old name working, too to avoid breaking people using it.

[Daenyth]

I agree with @ctrlaltca on all counts.

[ZeldaZach]

I agree with what @ctrlaltca is stating, but why have two tags that do the same thing? As i mentioned in my other comment on the other thread... I don't see a reason to change it as the wiki clearly documents how to use it

[Daenyth]

We keep the old one because we're trying not to jerk people around who have
already made settings with the old tag.

Maybe we could make an automatic migration for the settings? Call replace
in the setting handler

On Mon, May 30, 2016, 11:20 PM Zach [email protected] wrote:

I agree with what @ctrlaltca https://github.com/ctrlaltca is stating,
but why have two tags that do the same thing? As i mentioned in my other
comment on the other thread... I don't see a reason to change it as the
wiki clearly documents how to use it

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/Cockatrice/Cockatrice/issues/1992#issuecomment-222584116,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAA5NEj-wcyfjj00WgoBA2XHhx5z_4Mhks5qG6jxgaJpZM4Indzu
.

[Psithief]

I'm pretty sure it's collector number as described in the rules.

[tooomm]

Since this change is not in the newest official release (https://github.com/Cockatrice/Cockatrice/releases/tag/2016-06-30-Release), nor is a version containing this linked on our site, it's definitely worth changing before the next release. Just very few people have a client with this feature and way less should be using it.

Therefor the transition could be a bit more abrupt as well?
Otherwise I like to see a solution like we handle the "Picture cach size". On start we check once if it's set to 2048, if not we change it accordingly. If people lower it later, it stays.
In this case, we would check for cardnumber and change it to collectornumber once.
(btw: Why don't we use CamelCase here as well for better readability? :) )