Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature Request] CurseForge Server Pack #125

Open
HaXrDEV opened this issue Jul 13, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

[Feature Request] CurseForge Server Pack #125

HaXrDEV opened this issue Jul 13, 2024 · 6 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@HaXrDEV
Copy link

HaXrDEV commented Jul 13, 2024

Description

Sorry in advance if this is a duplicate of #92!

I would love to use this project to automate the publishing of one of my modpacks, but from what i can see, it isn't possible at the moment to mark additional files as a Server Pack. Is this perhaps something that could be looked into?

Alternative Solutions

I tried this upload-curseforge-modpack-action, which actually did the trick for me. But it has other pitfalls and is not nearly as versatile as mc-publish.

Risks

I don't see why this would have any risk. From my understanding it should a simple toggle in the API that is available when uploading additional files to modpacks.

Other Information

No response

@HaXrDEV HaXrDEV added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 13, 2024
@Kir-Antipov
Copy link
Owner

#92 was a duplicate of #64, which is different - it's about specifying the working environment of a specific mod (mostly). Modpacks differ in that sense, as they are intended for both client- and server-side environments. However, you can also provide a "simplified" version of your modpack for the server, stripped down from client-side-only mods (which is not strictly necessary, since client-side mods should simply remain inactive on a dedicated server, but it may save some storage and traffic in the case of large modpacks).

It turns out the CurseForge Upload API has yet another, sigh, undocumented parameter - isServerPack, which allows you to mark an additional file as a dedicated server-only version of your modpack. I see absolutely no harm in supporting that either. However, mc-publish doesn't have the infrastructure to attach data to secondary files, so this needs to be fully automatic (which aligns with enhanced support for modpacks and other project types planned for v4). Thus, I would highly appreciate it if you could give me a few links to projects that provide server packs, so I could poke them a bit and implement logic that detects if a secondary file is a server pack or not.

@HaXrDEV
Copy link
Author

HaXrDEV commented Jul 13, 2024

Thus, I would highly appreciate it if you could give me a few links to projects that provide server packs, so I could poke them a bit and implement logic that detects if a secondary file is a server pack or not.

I'm afraid that i haven't been able to find any other projects that supports server packs than the one i already linked. Their solution basically just require you to specify paths for the main file and the server pack separately. Not sure how you would be able to automatically detect whether a file is a server pack or not, as they don't usually include any metadata files. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

@Kir-Antipov
Copy link
Owner

By "projects" I meant modpacks published on CurseForge that make use of server packs :)

@Kir-Antipov
Copy link
Owner

Thanks! Welp, you weren't kidding when you said that they don't contain any standardized metadata. I guess we can automatically mark a modpack that's being uploaded as a secondary file as a server pack then? Is there any reason to publish a modpack as an additional file beyond that?

@HaXrDEV
Copy link
Author

HaXrDEV commented Jul 14, 2024

Maybe to provide optional configs? Other than that, not really. Though the only pack i know to do this is RLCraft, so it is quite a niche use case.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants