A few Pocket data improvement PRs for review + energy symbols issue #764
Replies: 6 comments
-
|
💬 avior on Discord wrote: Hey, I am in progress of reviewing your PRs ! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
💬 khal_3457 on Discord wrote: Thanks 😃 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
💬 khal_3457 on Discord wrote: Thanks for getting these merged <@223823847508410368>
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
💬 avior on Discord wrote: Hey, I merged #679 for #699 I am going to come up for the energy syntax I have someyhing coming up soonish that will help a lot :D |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
💬 khal_3457 on Discord wrote: Ah yeah thanks, I saw #679 was merged but I think the issue could be closed now as well. Re: energy syntax, sounds good. My PR suggestion was more an idea, look forward to seeing what you come up with 🙂 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
💬 khal_3457 on Discord wrote: I’ve also just opened a new PR #725 to fix a few issues I saw in Celestial Guardians. I saw you just put the energy type names in plaintext in the latest promo cards, so I’ve done the same here for the new set |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
💬 khal_3457 on Discord wrote:
Hi,
Sorry, wasn’t sure the best place to post this. Hope here is ok?
I noticed some data issues with various Pocket cards, mainly Triumphant Light and Shining Revelry, so I’ve written up a couple of PRs to address these:
Would anyone be able to review these?
I also have a PR to add all the missing Promo cards added over the last two sets:
These 3 PRs all ready for review but I was unable to move them on the project board. Just flagging here in-case they may have been missed.
—-
Additionally, I’ve noticed there are inconsistencies in how we represent energy icons throughout the dataset, I have raised an issue here suggesting a possible solution to standardise this, but open to discussion.
#697
I’ve drafted a PR (#699) of what this might look like standardised for all Pocket cards, but I’m not familiar with the full dataset so unsure if this would be reasonable globally?
Would appreciate any feedback on these, cheers
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions