Passing when planning conditional moves

I agree that no one ought to do something that they don’t want to do, or be shamed for not doing so in a volunteer situation. This is what I meant when I said

I’m not trying to tell people what to do on the coding side, but I want to bring attention to things on the forums if I think it will be beneficial to OGS.

That is true! I also think it’s true that there are plenty of other small steps as well, such as: making note of an issue or change, bringing the them up on the forum, checking if an issue has been resolved and communicating its status, and many others.
        I don’t think it’s fair to characterize these as non-affirmative actions. I also think it’s a bit of a double standard to admonish me for not getting a GitHub account, something I don’t want to do, while pointing out that no one else ought to be expected to do what they don’t want to do.
        I get that using GitHub seems like a simple step for somebody already familiar with that system, but it’s kind of an extra barrier for casual users like me. What I’d like is for there to be a more collaborative coupling between those who use the Forums and those that use GitHub that doesn’t push the expectation that Forum users ought to become GitHub users.


That was not my intent, I apologise.

You are under no expectation to create a GitHub account. Contributing to the forum discussion is already a huge step.
All I meant to say was that if you think the discussion would benefit from the existence of a GutHub issue for it, then it would be a reasonable step for you to create an issue (as well as an account if needed).
You creating a GitHub account is not linked to this discussion, it is only linked to your desire for a GitHub issue to be created.

I hope I have explained myself more clearly this time :heart:


Bumpedibump. :slight_smile:

I won’t let this feature starve to death! :smiley:


This feature is like a 1 cent coin on the floor. Who will pick it?


Things that are required for this feature:

Things that are not required for this feature:

More variations on the word “Bump”

Edit: crossed out UI design, because @BHydden suggested putting it between the two existing buttons, and I didn’t see any arguments against :smiley:


Like a 1 cent coin, it’s useful weight I don’t want in my wallet.



You only pass once a game (or 0 with resigns), I’d rather this feature didn’t exist and keep the UI simpler.

<cockpit meme>

1 Like

No cockpit if no options

The game playing page is the cockpit of unnecessary UI controls.

But we need at least a switch

What I mean is adding a pass button to the conditional moves section of the game playing page is adding visual noise of an additional UI element to that screen for a rarely used operation: passing and I think the benefit of being able to pass in conditional moves is less than the cost of that visual noise making the screen busier.

Also, what with all the problems on OGS of people passing prematurely and trying to score unfinished games with open borders and then complaining to moderators and annuls, forcing people to pause a moment before using the normal pass button, rather than letting them pass even faster without checking the board, seems like a good idea to me.


We can have a switch in the settings to make this conditional pass appear in the UI or not. Less cluttering like this.


You are acting like the pass button does not exist for virtually the entire game.
It’s there the entire time during the game, except in the conditional moves menu, where it’s suddenly gone.

Currently, it’s more of a hole in the UI! (I mean… I quote “It was always intended”)


Looking at the code…

We just need a button and then call “goban.pass” to send the pass, right? I’m seeing myself adding this in 2 minutes and then spending 30 hours figuring out how to actually test it locally…


You have a point here. But hiding the pass button during the game (one more option in the settings) could lead to some blockade when ending the game by players not very aware of all OGS parameters. Besides every game needs its passes (but not conditional ones)

A bit more than that for internationalization, but basically, yeah. Happy to help you get dev env set up if you’re interested (it shouldn’t take 30 hours)


If there was no pass button then you could never pass.

If there is no pass button in conditional moves panel, you can still pass.

But the position of the pass button is problematic in submit move mode (it’s in the same place, so you can end up misclicking pass instead of submit on mobile if you double tab), so I would support exploring ideas to make it less intrusive given it is rarely used.


I would reuse {_(“Pass”)} :smiley: Is that too naive?

If it’s less than 30 hours, I’d be interested… Actually, I just saw the dockerfile and docker-compose, if they work I’m fine on my own :slight_smile:


That’s fine! Just need to make sure both the moves tree and the button are translated.

I don’t use the Dockerfile so I can’t speak to its working status. I believe it’s used for deployment though, so probably good.

I just use Yarn to run the React dev server, which is basically (from the repo root):

# install all dependencies
# run the dev server
yarn dev

There are longer-form instructions in too.


How is “pass” represented in the conditional moves tree?