Opportunist Ability

[ghoulslash]

Now that mirror herb is merged, adding opportunist was relatively similar.

I needed to add a new MOVEEND_ case and ABILITYEFFECT_ case because we needed all other ability, item, etc moveend effects to occur first. This might not be the right approach though. Would need to think if there's a simpler way to handle this. But I made the gTotemBoosts statValue setting a cumulative effect, so if two opponents have e.g. intrepid sword, the opportunist mon will get a sharp attack boost (see below) - This needs more research as far as official mechanics. Would opportunist trigger after each individual intrepid sword?

Closes #2753

[AgustinGDLV]

Looks great on my local branch! I'm a little put off by gTotemBoosts staying the name for Mirror Herb and Opportunist cases. I think it's fine that we're reusing it, and I understand that this was already approved for Mirror Herb, so I'll let you decide if it should be changed to something a bit more accurate. I can only think of something like gQueuedStatBoosts, but that might be a bit misleading, too.

[AsparagusEduardo]

I agree, gQueuedStatBoosts would be a better name for the field now that it's used for other stuff than Totem boosts.

[ghoulslash]

I agree, gQueuedStatBoosts would be a better name for the field now that it's used for other stuff than Totem boosts.

Done

[AsparagusEduardo]

Can you merge with upcoming so that it passed the checks thanks to #3045?

[AsparagusEduardo]

It's failing due to a different reason 👀

[ghoulslash]

branch updated and test fixed.ready for re-review

[DizzyEggg]

Just a comment for now.
Would you mind creating a test for Opportunist in a double battle where partner has Intimidate, but one of the foes has Contrary, so its Attack rises. This seems like an edge case that could explode, but if it works, then I'd feel pretty comfortable merging it.

[ghoulslash]

Just a comment for now.
Would you mind creating a test for Opportunist in a double battle where partner has Intimidate, but one of the foes has Contrary, so its Attack rises. This seems like an edge case that could explode, but if it works, then I'd feel pretty comfortable merging it.

As per issue #3356 that given test will fail but not because of opportunist. Do we want to make the test now or add it to whichever PR fixes the bug?

[mrgriffin]

As per issue #3356 that given test will fail but not because of opportunist. Do we want to make the test now or add it to whichever PR fixes the bug?

I would add it now, but marked with KNOWN_FAILING.

[ghoulslash]

Added contrary + intimidate + opportunist test. ready to review