[1.12.1] Multiple recipe questions: Recipe Book tabs, unlocking recipes, and replacing vanilla recipes

[Aarilight]

I have five questions:

 

1. From what I've gathered, unlocking recipes (to add them to the recipe book) occurs from advancements that trigger when you have the items. Can I use them to unlock recipes that I've added via registering in the code?
2. Are all recipes by default locked? If I'm adding all of the recipes from ForgeRegistries.RECIPES.register, and therefore have a reference to the recipes and their ResourceLocation, is there a way I unlock all of them by default?
3. To get a recipe to appear in a specific tab of the recipe book, I read that you have to have them in the matching creative tab. Since my items all appear in a custom creative tab, does that mean they will only show in the compass (search/all) tab?
4. I plan to convert most of my recipes to JSON, but there are a few complicated recipes that take any number of certain items and set NBT data on the resulting items. What's the best practice on recipes like this? Do they even work with the recipe book?
5. [Solved] How can I replace vanilla recipes? In another topic, this was posted:

But doing what it says, when setRegistryName is called, I get an error java.lang.IllegalStateException: Attempted to set registry name with existing registry name! New: minecraft:bone_meal_from_bone

What am I doing wrong here?

Edited September 15, 2017 by Aarilight
link to solution for the last question

[Aarilight]

Fixed the last issue, I had assumed that Attempted to set registry name with existing registry name meant I couldn't set two items to the same registry name, but it actually means that the item already has a registry name, and it can't be changed. I don't have an answer for my other four questions yet tho. I updated the initial post marking this last question as solved.

 

However, setting the registryName to replace a vanilla registryName causes this warning: Dangerous alternative prefix `minecraft` for name `bone_meal_from_bone`, expected `souls` invalid registry invocation/invalid name?

 

Is there a way to suppress this warning?

Edited September 14, 2017 by Aarilight

[Draco18s]

1 hour ago, Aarilight said:

Is there a way to suppress this warning?

No. You have to live with it.

[Aarilight]

Ah well, thanks anyway. I added in a info log beforehand that says it's intentional. Do you have any advice on my other questions, by any chance? It's ok if you don't =)

[Draco18s]

1) Don't know, probably

2) Yes, but that just means it isn't shown in the recipe book unless game settings are changed to make unknown recipes uncraftable

3) Don't know

4) They should be convertible, even if you have to write custom conditions for them. I haven't really messed with it at all

5) Relevant, but if you remove / replace recipes you need to provide a new advancement to unlock them and the original advancement cannot be killed and will throw an error when it is deserialized. This error cannot be prevented, as it happens during the deserialization process.

[Aarilight]

Not sure if I misunderstood your answer for 5), but by replacing the minecraft:bone_meal_from_bone recipe, my new, replaced recipe unlocked when I had bones in my inventory (via original advancement). So the only real issue with replacing recipes is that it logs warnings about them having the minecraft: prefix even though it's intentional. Besides this warning everything works as I intended.

 

I would need a new advancement to unlock it if the recipe was changing, but the recipe is the same, it's just the output that's different now. I guess I should have mentioned that.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Aarilight

[Draco18s]

Must only be removed recipes then (e.g. I removed 3 wheat for bread and replaced it with 3 flour for bread, wheat requiring to be milled into flour).

Still a warning worth giving.

21 minutes ago, Aarilight said:

it logs warnings about them having the minecraft: prefix even though it's intentional. Besides this warning everything works as I intended.

Pretty much. Any object given a domain other than the domain being processed will log that warning. The substitution system has always done this.

[jabelar]

EDIT Nevermind, didn't read the whole thread.

Edited September 16, 2017 by jabelar