So I currently have an annotation based config class fully set up and working. Though one of the properties is an enum, and I don't like the way that it shows the enum instance name, I want to have a custom string for each value
I currently have this code, where I added a String property and put it in toString to return the name, but it still use the enum variable text to display in the configuration menu. (note that I use the built in menu automatically generated by Forge upon using @Config ).
 

// This is inside the root class for the config file
public static class Inventory {
	@Config.Name("Rarity Glow")
	public boolean rarityGlow = true;

	@Config.Name("Rarity Type")
	public RarityGlowType rarityGlowType = RarityGlowType.GRADIENT_COLOR;
	
	public enum RarityGlowType {
		SOLID_COLOR(0, "Solid Color"),
		GRADIENT_COLOR(1, "Gradient Color");

		private int id;
		private String name;

		private RarityGlowType(int id, String name) {
			this.id = id;
			this.name = name;
		}

		public int getId() {
			return id;
		}

		public String toString() {
			return name;
		}
	}
}

Basically this makes the config gui show "GRADIENT_COLOR" as the default option while I want it to show "Gradient Color" as returned in RarityGlowType#toString
How would I go ahead and fix this, without creating my own config gui of course?

Edited June 27, 20187 yr by Kirdow
Changing title to solved

30 minutes ago, Kirdow said:

So I currently have an annotation based config class fully set up and working. Though one of the properties is an enum, and I don't like the way that it shows the enum instance name, I want to have a custom string for each value
I currently have this code, where I added a String property and put it in toString to return the name, but it still use the enum variable text to display in the configuration menu. (note that I use the built in menu automatically generated by Forge upon using @Config ).
 

// This is inside the root class for the config file
public static class Inventory {
	@Config.Name("Rarity Glow")
	public boolean rarityGlow = true;

	@Config.Name("Rarity Type")
	public RarityGlowType rarityGlowType = RarityGlowType.GRADIENT_COLOR;
	
	public enum RarityGlowType {
		SOLID_COLOR(0, "Solid Color"),
		GRADIENT_COLOR(1, "Gradient Color");

		private int id;
		private String name;

		private RarityGlowType(int id, String name) {
			this.id = id;
			this.name = name;
		}

		public int getId() {
			return id;
		}

		public String toString() {
			return name;
		}
	}
}

Basically this makes the config gui show "GRADIENT_COLOR" as the default option while I want it to show "Gradient Color" as returned in RarityGlowType#toString
How would I go ahead and fix this, without creating my own config gui of course?

Do some debugging, find out how it generates that text to display and find a way to modify it. If your successful please post your results!

22 minutes ago, Cadiboo said:

Do some debugging, find out how it generates that text to display and find a way to modify it. If your successful please post your results!

I managed to fix it.
So while trying to find how it gets the value, I realized something I noticed a few years ago, how enums during compilation gets turned into a class extending Enum. This means my RarityGlowType would instead result in a public static class RarityGlowType extends Enum
Now I looked at my enum's super class to get to Enum, and Enum has 2 variables, "name" which is a String and "ordinal" which is the index. the "name" variable is returned in a method called "name()", though since all fields and methods are final I can't override them.
So I decided to look up if reflection allowed modifying final fields and found this stackoverflow answer . So I took that code, and put it in my enum's constructor resulting in the following code
 

public enum RarityGlowType {
	SOLID_COLOR(0, "Solid Color"),
	GRADIENT_COLOR(1, "Gradient Color");

	private int id;
	private String name;

	private RarityGlowType(int id, String name) {
		this.id = id;
		this.name = name;
	
		try {
			Field field = Enum.class.getDeclaredField("name");
			field.setAccessible(true);

			Field modifiersField = Field.class.getDeclaredField("modifiers");
			modifiersField.setAccessible(true);
			modifiersField.setInt(field, field.getModifiers() & ~Modifier.FINAL);

			field.set(this, name);

			System.out.println("Successfully changed RarityGlowType name!");
		} catch (Throwable throwable) {
			throwable.printStackTrace();
		}
	}

	public int getId() {
		return id;
	}

	public String toString() {
		return name;
	}
}

And while running this in IntelliJ it successfully showed up as "Solid Color" and "Gradient Color" like I wanted. Just note, as the stackoverflow answer states, if the environment has some sort of SecurityManager blocking changing the modifiers, this would break, so hopefully this wont break when the version is released to the public.

Cough.

EnumHelper, supplied by Forge.

Cough.

 

Also, if this is your own class, why the hell do you need reflection to do this?

Edited June 27, 20187 yr by Draco18s

8 minutes ago, Draco18s said:

Cough.

EnumHelper, supplied by Forge.

Cough.

Oh I forgot about this one, thanks, I modified the enum's constructor to use this instead.
Just to help out future visitors, this is the code I put in the constructor for it to work.

private RarityGlowType(int id, String name) {
	this.id = id;
	this.name = name;

	try {
		EnumHelper.setFailsafeFieldValue(ReflectionHelper.findField(Enum.class, "name"), this, name);

		System.out.println("Successfully changed RarityGlowType name!");
	} catch (Throwable throwable) {
		throwable.printStackTrace();
	}
}

 

38 minutes ago, diesieben07 said:

This is a terrible idea...

I am aware of this. I'm sure as long as you don't do too specific tasks with this it should be fine, I'm currently only going to use it in one if statement so I'm sure it will be fine. But then again it's Java so anything could happen  I'll probably revert back if this starts causing any problems though.

Here's a more stable way, that requires only the EnumHelper:

static
{
	for (RarityGlowTypeNames value : RarityGlowTypeNames.values())
	{
		String name = "";
		for (String word : value.name().split("_"))
			name += word.substring(0, 1) + word.substring(1).toLowerCase() + " ";

		EnumHelper.addEnum(RarityGlowType.class, name.substring(0, name.length() - 1), new Class<?>[0]);
	}
}

// This is inside the root class for the config file
public static class Inventory
{
	@Config.Name("Rarity Type")
	public RarityGlowType rarityGlowType = RarityGlowType.values()[0];
}

public enum RarityGlowType {}

public enum RarityGlowTypeNames
{
	SOLID_COLOR, GRADIENT_COLOR;
}

 

Or here's a variant of that without dynamic name generation:

static
{
	for (RarityGlowTypeNames name : RarityGlowTypeNames.values())
		EnumHelper.addEnum(RarityGlowType.class, name.toString(), new Class<?>[0]);
}

// This is inside the root class for the config file
public static class Inventory
{
	@Config.Name("Rarity Type")
	public RarityGlowType rarityGlowType = RarityGlowType.values()[0];
}

public enum RarityGlowType {}

public enum RarityGlowTypeNames
{
	SOLID_COLOR("Solid Color"),
	GRADIENT_COLOR("Gradient Color");

	private String name;

	private RarityGlowTypeNames(String name)
	{
		this.name = name;
	}

	@Override
	public String toString()
	{
		return name;
	}
}

 

An example of checking the value could be:

ConfigMod.inventory.rarityGlowType.ordinal() == RarityGlowTypeNames.GRADIENT_COLOR.ordinal()

 

An enum is what tells Forge to generate a cycling button config element. Do you have a constructive suggestions as to how to tell Forge to create one with formatted text (with or without an enum)? It helps to give input on what should be done, as well a what shouldn't.

1 minute ago, diesieben07 said:

Make a pull request to Forge.

I see. Then in the mean time, my next questions is: How stable is the solution I posted? Is this a "that's just not the intended usage" objection, or a "that can cause actual problems" objection?

Well, that's unfortunate. I haven't looked much at the backend of the config annotations system, but perhaps calling Enum#toString rather than Enum#name will work without breaking anything else.