Create MaterialSetTags without legacy materials

[kezz]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Creating a MaterialSetTag with the predicate constructor also includes legacy materials even when they aren't needed. This is odd because initialising using a list of materials by default removes legacy materials from the predicate.

Describe the solution you'd like
An additional constructor with a boolean to determine if legacy materials should be included. Also, this might be a breaking change but it might be worth making the non-boolean constructors default to ignoring legacy materials.

Describe alternatives you've considered
You cannot create a MaterialSetTag with a predicate if you don't want legacy materials in the tag. The only alternative is to construct a list of items and use the other constructor.

EDIT: Happy to do the code for this myself, would just like to know if such a feature would be acceptable or if there's some other option.

[yannicklamprecht]

I'm against this. Just use your List. Adding new legacy api features is not what I want for that project. Instead getting rid of all legacy shit.

[kezz]

I'm against this. Just use your List. Adding new legacy api features is not what I want for that project. Instead getting rid of all legacy shit.

I totally get this, however, if we want tags to not use legacy api features, wouldn't it be better to remove them by default? I can't use a list in this use case as I'm not actually making a simple list of items - I would have to essentially mimic the code inside the class but with legacy materials removed in order to emulate the functionality I can get when I use the list constructor.

[yannicklamprecht]

I'm against this. Just use your List. Adding new legacy api features is not what I want for that project. Instead getting rid of all legacy shit.

I totally get this, however, if we want tags to not use legacy api features, wouldn't it be better to remove them by default? I can't use a list in this use case as I'm not actually making a simple list of items - I would have to essentially mimic the code inside the class but with legacy materials removed in order to emulate the functionality I can get when I use the list constructor.

If I get that right you want create a list without legacy materials using the predicate constructor?

new MaterialSetTag(NamespacedKey.minecraft("your_list"), Predicate.not(Material::isLegacy).and(Predicate.not(Material::isAir)));
You can concat predicates so I don't see the need here for an additional constructor.

Please show your special use case where it doesn't work out for you.

[kezz]

I guess the root problem I have is the API isn't consistent. If we want to exclude legacy materials from MaterialSetTag then why don't we do that for all of the constructors? Could we not apply the same logic as this:

new MaterialSetTag(NamespacedKey.minecraft("your_list"), Predicate.not(Material::isLegacy).and(Predicate.not(Material::isAir)));
You can concat predicates so I don't see the need here for an additional constructor.

but with MaterialSetTags where legacy materials do want to be included?

Regardless, all of this functionality should be included in Javadocs - I can make a PR for this at some point if needs be.

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[Machine-Maker]

Yeah, I agree with @kezz. It should've been at least documented that the MaterialSetTag(NamespacedKey, Predicate) constructor also filter's out materials in addition to the ones provided in the filter. Probably worth doing that pr kezz.