From 3296287d70f7df7f438b072eba654a46b1ea5be6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aeadoin <109764533+Aeadoin@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 13:36:35 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] [Bug Fix] Fix for Lore Components where component is
 returned. (#3005)

* [Bug Fix] Fix for Lore Components where component is returned.

* Refactor, and take into account loregroups above 0 properly

* Update tradeskills.cpp

* formatting for suggestions.

* commenting, update formatting.

---------

Co-authored-by: Alex King <89047260+Kinglykrab@users.noreply.github.com>
---
 zone/tradeskills.cpp | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/zone/tradeskills.cpp b/zone/tradeskills.cpp
index 279eb7805..975dde29b 100644
--- a/zone/tradeskills.cpp
+++ b/zone/tradeskills.cpp
@@ -1866,30 +1866,50 @@ bool ZoneDatabase::DisableRecipe(uint32 recipe_id)
 bool Client::CheckTradeskillLoreConflict(int32 recipe_id)
 {
 	auto recipe_entries = TradeskillRecipeEntriesRepository::GetWhere(
-			content_db,
-			fmt::format(
-					"recipe_id = {} ORDER BY componentcount DESC",
-					recipe_id
-			)
+		content_db,
+		fmt::format(
+			"recipe_id = {} ORDER BY componentcount DESC",
+			recipe_id
+		)
 	);
 	if (recipe_entries.empty()) {
 		return false;
 	}
 
-	for (auto& f : recipe_entries) {
-		for (auto &e: recipe_entries) {
-			if (f.componentcount > 0 && e.item_id == f.item_id && e.componentcount == 0) {
-				e.item_id = 0;
+	// validate which items from the recipe we will call CheckLoreConflict on
+	for (const auto &tre : recipe_entries) {
+		if (tre.item_id) {
+			auto tre_inst = database.GetItem(tre.item_id);
+
+			// To compare items we iterate against each item in the recipe that have a loregroup.
+			for (auto &tre_update_item : recipe_entries) {
+				bool fi_is_valid = tre_update_item.item_id && tre_inst && tre_inst->LoreGroup != 0;
+
+				if (fi_is_valid) {
+					auto tre_update_item_inst = database.GetItem(tre_update_item.item_id);
+					bool ei_is_valid = tre_update_item_inst && tre_update_item_inst->LoreGroup != 0;
+					bool unique_lore_group_match = tre_inst->LoreGroup > 0 && tre_inst->LoreGroup == tre_update_item_inst->LoreGroup;
+					bool component_count_is_valid = tre_update_item.componentcount == 0 && tre.componentcount > 0;
+
+					// If the recipe item is a component, and matches a unique lore group (> 0) or the item_id matches another entry in the recipe
+					// zero out the item_id, this will prevent us from doing a lore check inadvertently where
+					// the item is a component, and returned on success, fail, salvage.
+					// or uses an item that is part of a unique loregroup that returns an item of the same unique loregroup
+					if (ei_is_valid && (tre_update_item.item_id == tre.item_id || unique_lore_group_match) && component_count_is_valid) {
+						tre_update_item.item_id = 0;
+					}
+				}
 			}
-			auto item_inst = database.GetItem(e.item_id);
-			if (item_inst) {
-				if (item_inst->LoreGroup >= 0 || e.componentcount > 0 || e.iscontainer) {
+
+			if (tre_inst) {
+				if (tre_inst->LoreGroup == 0 || tre.componentcount > 0 || tre.iscontainer) {
 					continue;
 				}
-				if (CheckLoreConflict(item_inst)) {
+
+				if (CheckLoreConflict(tre_inst)) {
 					EQ::SayLinkEngine linker;
 					linker.SetLinkType(EQ::saylink::SayLinkItemData);
-					linker.SetItemData(item_inst);
+					linker.SetItemData(tre_inst);
 					auto item_link = linker.GenerateLink();
 					MessageString(Chat::Red, TRADESKILL_COMBINE_LORE, item_link.c_str());
 					return true;
@@ -1897,6 +1917,7 @@ bool Client::CheckTradeskillLoreConflict(int32 recipe_id)
 			}
 		}
 	}
+
 	return false;
 }