Satisfactory: Fix typo in GoalSelection possible values description comment #5826
+1
−1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
github-actions
bot
added
the
waiting-on: peer-review
|
LGTM. |
Jarno458
approved these changes
Jan 8, 2026
Jarno458
added
is: bug/fix
lgbarrere
approved these changes
Jan 9, 2026
Contributor
lgbarrere
left a comment
lgbarrere
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No other trailing "Tier" found in this option, modification agreed.
Berserker66
approved these changes
Jan 15, 2026
github-actions
bot
removed
the
waiting-on: core-review
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What is this fixing or adding?
The user-facing comment currently claims that
Space Elevator Tieris a valid option value, but it is not.Looks like it was caused by this code review 5c7435e and the value's rename 49e0f32 happening separately or getting lost in a merge conflict or something.
This problem only affects the comment the user sees in sample YAMLs and in the web options portal; the value is already correct elsewhere in the code (excluding #5812).
How was this tested?
Not tested, it's just a comment.