UMAPINFO: Questionable default handling of exiting the secret levels

[ViolentBeetle]

I am not sure it's a bug, but it seems wrong.
If map has an associated UMAPINFO entry, exiting the level normally appears to go to the next map numerically. Which is logical, except on secret levels where the game should instead return player to normal progression (ie MAP16 in Doom 2, or E1M4 in first episode of Doom) but instead goes to the next level numerically and crash because MAP33 or E1M10 et al don't exist.

Steps to reproduce:

• Download this wad
• Go to MAP32 and finish it (The map will be renamed "Nazi Adventure!" due to UMAPINFO)
• Observe the game crash, unable to find resources associated with MAP33

I confirmed this handing in PrBoom+ v2.6um and DSDA-Doom 0.24.3 but not in gzDoom

[JadingTsunami]

This seems like a bug that should be filed against the UMAPINFO spec, in the following section:

UMAPINFO spec - default handling

[kraflab]

There is no such thing as a "secret level" in umapinfo. The game doesn't know how you arrived at a map. Similarly there is no "normal progression" except that the map number goes up by 1 when you leave a map.

[kraflab]

For sure I'll say under no circumstance can we change what map you go to by default when you leave a map, that would be a massive break in behaviour that could affect any number of wads and would create a critical split between future versions of the port and old versions.

[JadingTsunami]

There is no such thing as a "secret level" in umapinfo. The game doesn't know how you arrived at a map. Similarly there is no "normal progression" except that the map number goes up by 1 when you leave a map.

Yes, and the specification should define the default behavior. Adding a default behavior note that says "The exit to all maps defined in UMAPINFO will proceed to the next numerical map unless next and/or nextsecret are specified, in which case the respective target is used" would be enough.

Otherwise the "default progression" can be ambiguous: is this the way the map would behave if no UMAPINFO were present? The issue filed here assumes that. The current wording of the spec mentions "hard coded" engine defaults but doesn't lay out what those are.

Normally, if some information cannot be found, the engine will fall back to its hard coded implementation, with a few exceptions: [...]

It seems like a reasonable reading of this statement to assume secret exits work the way they do in the engine by default.

This can be addressed by updating the spec to reflect the de facto standard.

[kraflab]

I agree, it should be more specific in the spec, I'll put in an update.