[Patch] Timed Achievements, Fail-Support and Opcodes

[Schmoozerd]

Description of the feature?

* Implement DoFailTimedAchievementCriteria function

* Improve the Opcodes

For which repository revision was the patch created?

10399, 10637

Is there a thread in the bug report section or at lighthouse?

no

Who has been writing this patch?

me

Patch:

http://paste2.org/p/1049075 for Rev 10637

- fixed a bug in the DoFailedTimedAchievementCriterias for-loop (please take extra care on review), improved comments, fixed bugs of last version

Please test, and report issues if you find any

I added a new list, and a new bool to process, and it might be possible I missed some initialization or similar.

Also retail _does_ send different timers in the opcodes for _some_ criterias, situations.

But I couldn't get a pattern there, and so it might (though unlikely) be possible, that this patch has impact on other Achievements, but I tested it, and didn't found any problems.

And ofc any ideas for improving the opcodes are very welcome

History:

http://paste2.org/p/961639 for Rev 10399

l. 60: data << uint32(progress->timedCriteriaFailed); <-- data << uint32(progress->timedCriteriaFailed ? 1 : 0);

l. 191: *data << uint32(iter->second.date); <-- *data << uint32(iter->second.timedCriteriaFailed ? 1 : 0); (..... dammn copy and paste)

* iter improvements, suggested by DasBlub

[Schmoozerd]

bump for rev 10637 - I fixed the long time mentioned bugs and also some bug in the for loop, please take extra care there:

-- the for-loop part as in version for rev 10637

   for (AchievementCriteriaFailTime::iterator iter = m_criteriaFailTimes.begin(); iter != m_criteriaFailTimes.end()
   {
       if (iter->second > now)
       {
           ++iter;
           continue;
       }
...
       // Send Fail for failed criterias
       if (!IsCompletedCriteria(criteria, achievement))
       {
... < no break/continue here
       }
       iter = m_criteriaFailTimes.erase(iter);

[DasBlub]

+            iter++;

better write ++iter; in that case, iterators are faster that way. (only some small thingy which jumped to my eye when i was looking over it)

[VladimirMangos]

Also unclear why use insert call for map but not map[idx] = value

[added]With replaced to use map[] assign and small code speedups/cleanups in [10667]. Thank you