Skip to content

fix: resolve brackets per map when counting waiters and reinforcing live games#10

Merged
FrancescoBorzi merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
fix/bracket-routing
Jul 2, 2026
Merged

fix: resolve brackets per map when counting waiters and reinforcing live games#10
FrancescoBorzi merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
fix/bracket-routing

Conversation

@FrancescoBorzi

@FrancescoBorzi FrancescoBorzi commented Jul 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

pvpdifficulty bracket indices are numbered per map, but the module used the WSG-derived index
it buckets players by as if it were valid for every battleground (only WS and AB share WSG's
numbering). Two things broke:

  • When preferring a BG that already has manual queuers, the pass probed each candidate's queue
    at the WSG index. Manual AV/EY/SA/IC queuers were invisible (a level 75 EY queuer sits at
    EY's own index 1, the code read index 6), and the wrong index could even mis-prefer a BG a
    completely different level range was waiting for.
  • When reinforcing a live game, bracket-boundary players were queued into a bracket of that
    BG's queue the game never reads (a level 70 into AV 61-70 while the live AV runs 71-80),
    parking them in a dead queue. Only the last processed player's bracket got a queue update.

Now waiter counting resolves the bucket's level range into the candidate BG's own brackets via
the DBC, the matched live game's bracket travels with the pick so off-bracket players are
skipped at queue time (reported in .bgevents run, picked up normally by the next pass), and
one queue update is scheduled per distinct bracket queued into.

Created with the help of Claude Code

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@FrancescoBorzi, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 55 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: d88b48e4-eb02-47ee-b8bc-7e14c3935773

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 17cf37f and b8e430b.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)
  • src/BgAutoQueue.cpp
  • src/BgAutoQueue.h
  • src/cs_bg_auto_queue.cpp
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch fix/bracket-routing

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@FrancescoBorzi FrancescoBorzi merged commit 84d05e3 into main Jul 2, 2026
2 checks passed
@FrancescoBorzi FrancescoBorzi deleted the fix/bracket-routing branch July 2, 2026 16:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant