(Is this a dupe?)



Due to the recent updates to project security using websites such as Turbowarp are no longer viable for testing cloud projects. This means that to test a cloud project it must be shared on a separate account if you are at all concerned with keeping it concealed until its intended release.

My proposition is that upon clicking the “Test” button (pictured above) a new tab would be opened with an instance of the project with fully functional cloud variables.

It would either have a box to change your username (so that you can use the same account one one cloud project multiple times) or add a number to the end of your username for every instance.



If using server resources is not a problem, you would able to have multiple of these open, across multiple tabs, browsers, devices, etc, but importantly not across accounts so you can't privately share projects with other people. If this is too heavy on servers then it could be done locally, using the LocalStorage API, or some other alternative. I sincerely believe that the inability to do proper pre-release testing of cloud projects will be a large problem, and that this is the best way to fix it.

(Essentially just a way to change your username while editing a project for better cloud testing)

Edit: minor alterations to suggestion - stated this could all be done locally.

semi-support. while this would be a good idea and very useful, I feel it could put a lot of strain on the servers

-Valtren- wrote:

semi-support. while this would be a good idea and very useful, I feel it could put a lot of strain on the servers

In what way would it strain servers? Cloud vars already work in the editor, all this does is basically introduce a username field for testing projects.

AHypnoman wrote:

-Valtren- wrote:

semi-support. while this would be a good idea and very useful, I feel it could put a lot of strain on the servers

In what way would it strain servers? Cloud vars already work in the editor, all this does is basically introduce a username field for testing projects.

lets say a single cloud variable project puts a strain of one per person using it on the server. what you're suggesting is to be able to open the project in multiple tabs, essentially simulating a bunch of people using it. in addition to that, you're also including multiple usernames. lets say that puts a strain of .5 per person. the maximum amount of cloud variables you can have is 10, so a strain of 15 at most would be put on the server from a single project. However, there are a lot of cloud projects, I've seen around 20 or so. 20x15=300. a strain of 300 is put on the server with this feature added, while without it the only a strain of 20 is put on the server.
TL;DR more data=more strain on servers. it may be a small strain, but it's still a strain.
I am horrible at explaining things someone explain it properly

edit: also cloud variables don't work in the editor.

-Valtren- wrote:

~Snip~
lets say a single cloud variable project puts a strain of one per person using it on the server. what you're suggesting is to be able to open the project in multiple tabs, essentially simulating a bunch of people using it. in addition to that, you're also including multiple usernames. lets say that puts a strain of .5 per person. the maximum amount of cloud variables you can have is 10, so a strain of 15 at most would be put on the server from a single project. However, there are a lot of cloud projects, I've seen around 20 or so. 20x15=300. a strain of 300 is put on the server with this feature added, while without it the only a strain of 20 is put on the server.
TL;DR more data=more strain on servers. it may be a small strain, but it's still a strain.
I am horrible at explaining things someone explain it properly

edit: also cloud variables don't work in the editor.

These numbers are so arbitrary they don't really show anything - how bad is 300 strain? Also, changing the username isn't that big a deal: it wouldn't change the username of whoever changed the cloud variable (so not the username that appears in the cloud monitor) - it would only change what the “username” block reported. Also, there are already tons of cloud projects putting strain on servers - griffpatch's projects often hit 50 players online. Furthermore, outside of the context of Scratch, tons of tiny less-than-kilobyte requests to servers aren't particularly taxing, so I see no reason that Scratch's servers can't handle hundreds, if not thousands of cloud requests per minute.

If it is actually taxing for Scratch's servers, they could cap it at an amount that don't create a lot of strain. Also bear in mind that the alternative is sharing it and using a ton of alt accounts to test, which would have the exact same levels of strain as my idea, if not less due to less connections needing to be open.

(Also I mean in the editor before you share a project, in which they do work. Try it).

Been 24H, bump

Wait I got the time wrong - sorry

AHypnoman wrote:

Been 24H, bump

Wait I got the time wrong - sorry

Pretty sure it only needs to be off the first page.

Bump again

Support! But I think this is a big ambiguous and could put even more strain on the already strained cloud servers

-Valtren- wrote:

semi-support. while this would be a good idea and very useful, I feel it could put a lot of strain on the servers

Why would this put strain on the server if cloud projects normally don't add any strain?

portalpower wrote:

-Valtren- wrote:

semi-support. while this would be a good idea and very useful, I feel it could put a lot of strain on the servers

Why would this put strain on the server if cloud projects normally don't add any strain?

Cloud projects do have a ton of strain, there was a user who make hundreds of projects that set cloud variables to values causing server speed to lower by 80%

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

portalpower wrote:

-Valtren- wrote:

semi-support. while this would be a good idea and very useful, I feel it could put a lot of strain on the servers

Why would this put strain on the server if cloud projects normally don't add any strain?

Cloud projects do have a ton of strain, there was a user who make hundreds of projects that set cloud variables to values causing server speed to lower by 80%

Who? When?

The only time I can remember that cloud stuff has been problematic for Scratch's servers when when Griffpatch released Terraria Stamped which stored people's whole worlds on cloud vars using insane amounts of memory. Besides which the amount of additional strain would be tiny (about the same as the amount of strain on Turbowarp's servers as most people using Scratch's would have migrated from testing on Turbowarp). The term “strain” in this context is loosely defined, if not meaningless. It just seems to be being tossed around randomly. It's a pointless argument to say that strain is a problem when strain isn't defined clearly in this context.

Edit: added comma where comma was needed, fixed incorrect structuring of text.
Edit 2: fixed cloud cars.

AHypnoman wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

portalpower wrote:

-Valtren- wrote:

semi-support. while this would be a good idea and very useful, I feel it could put a lot of strain on the servers

Why would this put strain on the server if cloud projects normally don't add any strain?

Cloud projects do have a ton of strain, there was a user who make hundreds of projects that set cloud variables to values causing server speed to lower by 80%

Who? When?

The only time I can remember that cloud stuff has been problematic for Scratch's servers when when Griffpatch released Terraria Stamped which stored people's whole worlds on cloud cars using insane amounts of memory. Besides which the amount of additional strain would be tiny (about the same as the amount of strain on Turbowarp's servers as most people using Scratch's would have migrated from testing on Turbowarp). The term “strain” in this context is loosely defined, if not meaningless. It just seems to be being tossed around randomly. It's a pointless argument to say that strain is a problem when strain isn't defined clearly in this context.

Edit: added comma where comma was needed, fixed incorrect structuring of text.

What are cloud cars? I've seen alot of strange comments recently, so this wasn't unexpected.

Wouldn't the “Test” button confuse newer Scratchers? They'll think it's something like the green flag or something else.
“Test Cloud Variables” probably wouldn't be that much better either.

An0therRand0mC0der wrote:

Wouldn't the “Test” button confuse newer Scratchers? They'll think it's something like the green flag or something else.
“Test Cloud Variables” probably wouldn't be that much better either.

Yeah. The suggestion has good intentions, but the only problem is that it sounds like this feature could be slightly confusing if you haven't used it before, no matter how we go about it. It's much easier to just open another tab or window.

PPPDUD wrote:

~snip~
What are cloud cars? I've seen alot of strange comments recently, so this wasn't unexpected.

Typo - fixed

D-ScratchNinja wrote:

An0therRand0mC0der wrote:

Wouldn't the “Test” button confuse newer Scratchers? They'll think it's something like the green flag or something else.
“Test Cloud Variables” probably wouldn't be that much better either.

Yeah. The suggestion has good intentions, but the only problem is that it sounds like this feature could be slightly confusing if you haven't used it before, no matter how we go about it. It's much easier to just open another tab or window.

(replying to both)
Opening a new tab still doesn't solve the problem that this suggestion is trying to, that being having the same username in every instance (a thing that is problematic in cloud testing). Also people wouldn't even have this option appear unless they are a full Scratcher and using cloud vars.

How would someone confuse it with the green flag? If they have been a new Scratcher for at least two weeks they, unless explicitly trying not to, will have pressed the green flag. I think it's unlikely that anyone would mistake it for the green flag button (and even if they do they still see the project run, just in a separate tab).

Admittedly, “Test” is a bad description of what it does. Maybe “Test with cloud”? That certainly needs to be changed. Bare in mind that suggestions are subject to change.

My final point, “this feature could be slightly confusing if you haven't used it before, no matter how we go about it” is a card you can pull for any suggestion. You've basically just said “it's not totally obvious what to do at a glance and there is no way to fix that”. This statement is correct but applies to any task that has ever existed. It's not really a valid point.

AHypnoman wrote:

PPPDUD wrote:

~snip~
What are cloud cars? I've seen alot of strange comments recently, so this wasn't unexpected.

Typo

I see.

AHypnoman wrote:

~snip~

Quoting self because I did a huge edit to a post after posting which doesn't notify. Please consider it a separate post.

An0therRand0mC0der wrote:

Wouldn't the “Test” button confuse newer Scratchers? They'll think it's something like the green flag or something else.
“Test Cloud Variables” probably wouldn't be that much better either.

…
You can’t use cloud variables as a new scratcher

Um… people, I'm pretty sure that testing cloud projects wouldn't NEED to use actual cloud servers. Didn't OP say that the test would be entirely local?