Fix relational placeholders parsing order for Viewer -> Sender context

[vLuckyyy]

PR Description

Fixes the argument order passed to PlaceholderAPI.setRelationalPlaceholders to correctly align with the Viewer -> Sender relationship context. This ensures relational placeholders (like %rel_clan_tag%) are parsed from the perspective of the recipient looking at the sender.

Behavior Before

Relational placeholders were parsed with the Sender as the first argument and the Viewer as the second.

• Effect: Relations were calculated "in reverse" (from the sender's perspective towards the viewer). For example, Player A would see Player B's message as if Player B were looking at Player A, or would see tags incorrect for the viewer's context.

Behavior After

Relational placeholders are parsed with the Viewer (Recipient) as the first argument and the Sender as the second.

• Effect: Relations are calculated correctly from the perspective of the person reading the chat. Player A sees Player B's message with the correct relationship status (e.g., "Enemy", "Ally") relative to themselves.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @vLuckyyy, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request resolves an issue where relational placeholders were not being parsed correctly due to an incorrect argument order in a method call. By reversing the viewer and target parameters, the system will now correctly interpret placeholders based on the intended Viewer -> Sender context, ensuring accurate display of dynamic content.

Highlights

• Relational Placeholder Parsing: Corrected the argument order for the PlaceholderAPI.setRelationalPlaceholders method to ensure proper parsing in Viewer -> Sender context. The viewer and target arguments were swapped.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request corrects the order of arguments passed to PlaceholderAPI.setRelationalPlaceholders, fixing an issue with relational placeholder parsing. The change aligns the implementation with the expected behavior of PlaceholderAPI, where the first player argument is the viewer and the second is the target. The fix is correct. I've suggested adding a unit test to cover this case and prevent future regressions.