AstralTransRocketries/TrueCraft
Archived
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 48 Pull Requests 1 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Support for Query Protocol #150

Merged
manio143 merged 3 commits from Query into master 2015-06-20 14:15:37 -04:00
Conversation 28 Commits 3 Files Changed 4 +242
manio143 commented 2015-06-20 02:47:36 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

I finally did it. I tested it with my own test http://pastebin.com/SQ7TekwR

I finally did it. I tested it with my own test http://pastebin.com/SQ7TekwR
manio143 commented 2015-06-20 02:58:33 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Actually, because I had to rewrite it after first accidentally deleting all my work, I forgot something and going to fix it.

Actually, because I had to rewrite it after first accidentally deleting all my work, I forgot something and going to fix it.
ddevault commented 2015-06-20 09:03:10 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Looks good for the most part, just a few corrections and I'll get this merged up.

Looks good for the most part, just a few corrections and I'll get this merged up.
manio143 commented 2015-06-20 11:23:38 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Ok, I'll fix all of it. One thing though, when I tried setting the port to 26556 it simply didn't work.

Ok, I'll fix all of it. One thing though, when I tried setting the port to 26556 it simply didn't work.
ddevault commented 2015-06-20 11:26:44 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

25565, and how so?

25565, and how so?
manio143 commented 2015-06-20 11:30:57 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Sorry, 25565. I don't know how. But apparently I was receiving ICMP host unreachable via a SocketException. I'll try it again.

Sorry, 25565. I don't know how. But apparently I was receiving ICMP host unreachable via a SocketException. I'll try it again.
ddevault commented 2015-06-20 11:32:16 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Okay. If you can't figure it out, we can merge with 25566 and look into it later.

Okay. If you can't figure it out, we can merge with 25566 and look into it later.
manio143 commented 2015-06-20 12:31:51 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

FIY the build failed in the TrueCraft.Client, because of some other commit. It's a property which needs to have both {get; set;} not just get.

FIY the build failed in the TrueCraft.Client, because of some other commit. It's a property which needs to have both `{get; set;}` not just get.
ddevault commented 2015-06-20 12:51:10 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

I'll get this merged as soon as I fix some other things.

I'll get this merged as soon as I fix some other things.
moorehousew commented 2015-06-20 12:51:23 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

That, or mark the property as abstract, not virtual.

That, or mark the property as abstract, not virtual.
ddevault commented 2015-06-20 12:54:40 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

That's not why the build failed. Don't worry about it, I'm on top of it.

That's not why the build failed. Don't worry about it, I'm on top of it.
ddevault commented 2015-06-20 14:25:34 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

@manio143 I tested this on localhost and it does not seem to work. The reason why isn't immediately obvious to me. I used Dinnerbone's mcstatus to test it.

@manio143 I tested this on localhost and it does not seem to work. The reason why isn't immediately obvious to me. I used Dinnerbone's [mcstatus](https://github.com/Dinnerbone/mcstatus) to test it.
manio143 commented 2015-06-20 15:15:08 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Ok, I'm working on that. With one thing to have in mind: only MinecraftServer.query from mcstatus applies here.

Ok, I'm working on that. With one thing to have in mind: only `MinecraftServer.query` from **mcstatus** applies here.
ddevault commented 2015-06-20 15:17:26 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Yep, that's what I used.

Yep, that's what I used.
manio143 commented 2015-06-20 15:53:37 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

I think I found the problem. Python is sending the challenge token (and other int as well) as LittleEndian. Which is wrong since we expect BigEndian. Weird thing is though, it works with some old Minecraft server (12w2 or something like that).

I think I found the problem. Python is sending the challenge token (and other **int** as well) as LittleEndian. Which is wrong since we expect BigEndian. Weird thing is though, it works with some old Minecraft server (12w2 or something like that).
ddevault commented 2015-06-20 15:57:39 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Only the lower 4-bits on each byte of the session ID should be used as Minecraft does not process the higher 4-bits on each byte. To convert any 4-byte session ID to a valid Minecraft session ID, simply mask the bits with sessionId & 0x0F0F0F0F.

> Only the lower 4-bits on each byte of the session ID should be used as Minecraft does not process the higher 4-bits on each byte. To convert any 4-byte session ID to a valid Minecraft session ID, simply mask the bits with sessionId & 0x0F0F0F0F.
ddevault commented 2015-06-20 15:58:11 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

I'd say that Dinnerbone's implementation is effectively the reference implementation.

I'd say that Dinnerbone's implementation is effectively the reference implementation.
manio143 commented 2015-06-20 16:02:42 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Yes, but in his script I set sessionId to 1, and in truecraft, when debugging, I get 16777216, so clearly something is wrong.

Yes, but in his script I set sessionId to 1, and in truecraft, when debugging, I get 16777216, so clearly something is wrong.
manio143 commented 2015-06-20 16:03:51 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Maybe I shouldn't be processing those high bits, I don't know.

Maybe I shouldn't be processing those high bits, I don't know.
ddevault commented 2015-06-20 16:04:13 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Yeah, that's just the endianness being wrong. Reverse the endianness of 16777216 and you get 1.

Yeah, that's just the endianness being wrong. Reverse the endianness of 16777216 and you get 1.
manio143 commented 2015-06-20 16:05:38 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

But then won't I be using Little Endian, which is against the specification?

But then won't I be using Little Endian, which is against the specification?
ddevault commented 2015-06-20 16:06:25 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

The "spec" was authored by the community through reverse engineering. If it's wrong in practice, then go with the practical spec.

The "spec" was authored by the community through reverse engineering. If it's wrong in practice, then go with the practical spec.
manio143 commented 2015-06-20 16:07:01 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Alright, will do.

Alright, will do.
ddevault commented 2015-06-20 16:07:17 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

It shouldn't matter anyway, though. Whatever endianness you read, so long as you write it back in the same endianness, in theory won't case any side effects on the client.

It shouldn't matter anyway, though. Whatever endianness you read, so long as you write it back in the same endianness, in theory won't case any side effects on the client.
ddevault commented 2015-06-20 16:07:26 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

You just have to be consistent with your endianness.

You just have to be consistent with your endianness.
manio143 commented 2015-06-20 16:14:48 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

The thing is, the script reads big endian and send little endian which is confusing.

The thing is, the script reads big endian and send little endian which is confusing.
ddevault commented 2015-06-20 16:16:38 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

That's weird.

That's weird.
manio143 commented 2015-06-20 16:36:46 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Ok, I fixed it all. I added a new commit to the same branch. Do I have to open another pull request?

Ok, I fixed it all. I added a new commit to the same branch. Do I have to open another pull request?
ddevault commented 2015-06-20 16:37:29 -04:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Yep.

Yep.
This repo is archived. You cannot comment on pull requests.
Reviewers
No Reviewers
Labels
Clear labels
bug
duplicate
enhancement
future
help wanted
invalid
question
wontfix
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
oneechanhax
No Assignees
1 Participants
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: AstralTransRocketries/TrueCraft#150
No description provided.
Delete Branch "Query"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?