adds volume setting when using KFCA (ex: with EAC / when using sdvxhook2)
sdvxhook2:
adds some hooks addressing some system settings that versions of SDVX touch and would be good to avoid
tested locally
In GitLab by @xyen on Mar 15, 2022, 08:42
_Merges sdvx_misc_updates -> master_
sdvxio-kfca:
- adds volume setting when using KFCA (ex: with EAC / when using sdvxhook2)
sdvxhook2:
- adds some hooks addressing some system settings that versions of SDVX touch and would be good to avoid
tested locally
What's the impact of this change, considering the return value is a different one now?
If none, then I am wondering if the return value is even evaluated correctly.
What's the impact of this change, considering the return value is a different one now?
If none, then I am wondering if the return value is even evaluated correctly.
Nit: The implementation for the volume config values looks to me like a standard way for setting the volume rather than an override as the default is always 0. I would just call it config_kfca.main_volume etc. in the struct and config file instead.
Nit: The implementation for the volume config values looks to me like a standard way for setting the volume rather than an override as the default is always 0. I would just call it `config_kfca.main_volume` etc. in the struct and config file instead.
sdvxhook never actually checked the result of this function, and so it succeeded, but other use-cases check the return, and ran into issues when using btools stock sdvxio.
In GitLab by @xyen on Mar 16, 2022, 24:10
Commented on [src/main/sdvxio/sdvxio.c line 70](https://github.com/djhackersdev/bemanitools/compare/96775835bafc24211d8d128b72a8bdc0f78fe03f..7180df4ff6d79c79458033ea54173feb843e4f86#diff-880ea4c5dced4b570d5b62ca26ff1518R70)
sdvxhook never actually checked the result of this function, and so it succeeded, but other use-cases check the return, and ran into issues when using btools stock sdvxio.
In GitLab by @xyen on Mar 16, 2022, 24:50
Commented on [src/main/sdvxhook2/nvapi.c line 50](https://github.com/djhackersdev/bemanitools/compare/96775835bafc24211d8d128b72a8bdc0f78fe03f..b2714d145593a93a5e8be84066c347f71452bf8b#diff-aa1413986bc58c795ab84bc75df25cbeR50)
changed this line in [version 2 of the diff](/djhackers/bemanitools/-/merge_requests/108/diffs?diff_id=2335&start_sha=b2714d145593a93a5e8be84066c347f71452bf8b#4d68c5b3dced92a3b0fa8f12519c122cdaba9174_50_36)
In GitLab by @xyen on Mar 16, 2022, 24:50
Commented on [src/main/sdvxhook2/nvapi.c line 41](https://github.com/djhackersdev/bemanitools/compare/96775835bafc24211d8d128b72a8bdc0f78fe03f..b2714d145593a93a5e8be84066c347f71452bf8b#diff-aa1413986bc58c795ab84bc75df25cbeR41)
changed this line in [version 2 of the diff](/djhackers/bemanitools/-/merge_requests/108/diffs?diff_id=2335&start_sha=b2714d145593a93a5e8be84066c347f71452bf8b#4d68c5b3dced92a3b0fa8f12519c122cdaba9174_41_34)
In GitLab by @xyen on Mar 16, 2022, 24:50
Commented on [src/main/sdvxhook2/dllmain.c line 160](https://github.com/djhackersdev/bemanitools/compare/96775835bafc24211d8d128b72a8bdc0f78fe03f..b2714d145593a93a5e8be84066c347f71452bf8b#diff-ec3dc1d5d05e6c2d84f62d40fe3ec1e8R160)
changed this line in [version 2 of the diff](/djhackers/bemanitools/-/merge_requests/108/diffs?diff_id=2335&start_sha=b2714d145593a93a5e8be84066c347f71452bf8b#b617b3e69277bb24c278ccb4f3afaca1472ab912_160_159)
In GitLab by @xyen on Mar 16, 2022, 24:50
added 1 commit
<ul><li>7180df4f - sdvxhook: address comments</li></ul>
[Compare with previous version](/djhackers/bemanitools/-/merge_requests/108/diffs?diff_id=2335&start_sha=b2714d145593a93a5e8be84066c347f71452bf8b)
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
In GitLab by @xyen on Mar 15, 2022, 08:42
Merges sdvx_misc_updates -> master
sdvxio-kfca:
sdvxhook2:
tested locally
What's up with this?
Same here
Nit: Somewhat superfluous, the if-block is very self-explanatory, imo.
What's the impact of this change, considering the return value is a different one now?
If none, then I am wondering if the return value is even evaluated correctly.
Nit: The implementation for the volume config values looks to me like a standard way for setting the volume rather than an override as the default is always 0. I would just call it
config_kfca.main_volumeetc. in the struct and config file instead.In GitLab by @xyen on Mar 16, 2022, 24:10
Commented on src/main/sdvxio/sdvxio.c line 70
sdvxhook never actually checked the result of this function, and so it succeeded, but other use-cases check the return, and ran into issues when using btools stock sdvxio.
In GitLab by @xyen on Mar 16, 2022, 24:50
Commented on src/main/sdvxhook2/nvapi.c line 50
changed this line in version 2 of the diff
In GitLab by @xyen on Mar 16, 2022, 24:50
Commented on src/main/sdvxhook2/nvapi.c line 41
changed this line in version 2 of the diff
In GitLab by @xyen on Mar 16, 2022, 24:50
Commented on src/main/sdvxhook2/dllmain.c line 160
changed this line in version 2 of the diff
In GitLab by @xyen on Mar 16, 2022, 24:50
added 1 commit
7180df4f- sdvxhook: address commentsCompare with previous version
In GitLab by @xyen on Mar 16, 2022, 24:50
resolved all threads