Why doesn't it make a Clickdetector

Help and Feedback Scripting Support
#1 
function module.SetUp()
	for _, Drop in pairs(Drops:GetChildren()) do
		local CD = Instance.new("ClickDetector")
		CD.MaxActivationDistance = 15
		CD.Parent = Drop

		CD.MouseClick:Connect(function(Player)
			module.SendPet(Player, Drop)
		end)
	end
end

module.SetUp()
1 Like
#2

is this in a module script?
if so then you should call module.SetUp() outside of the module

#3

its in a module script schould module.SetUp() after return module

#4

Either do what @EggLord123 said or just require the script during startup and that should run it i think

#5

module script:

function module.SetUp()
	--the code
end

return module

some script:

local module = require(--location of the module)

module.SetUp()

did you meant like this?

#6

I am pretty sure you could move the module.Setup() function above the return module in the Module Script then when you require it that function runs

#7 
local module = require(function()
	function module.SetUp()
		for _, Drop in pairs(Drops:GetChildren()) do
			local CD = Instance.new("ClickDetector")
			CD.MaxActivationDistance = 15
			CD.Parent = Drop

			CD.MouseClick:Connect(function(Player)
				module.SendPet(Player, Drop)
			end)
		end
	end
end)


module.SetUp()

return module

like this?

#8

I dont use module scripts much myself, but arent functions in modules supposed to be written like this:

module.Setup = function()
--the code
end

and then called in other scripts?

local SetupModule = require(module)
SetupModule.Setup()

(may have misread the post a little, i dunno)

#9

It would be more like

module.Setup = function()
–do code
end

module.Setup()

return module

In another script do local Module = require(modulePath)

1 Like
#10

that is not how you use require()
the first parameter of require() has to be the location of the module in explorer

1 Like
#11

Well, both work, but writing

function module.Setup()
    ...
end

Looks much cleaner and is, from my understanding, the “intended” way. Writing them as a table like that makes everything less readable in my opinion, and they don’t allow you to use OOP in the same way

-- OOP example
local module = {}
module.__index = module

function module.new() -- Static function
    local self = {}
    setmetatable(self, module)

    return self
end

function module:Foo() -- Only works on an object created with this module's module.new()
    ...
end

return module
1 Like
#12

do i need to put my code somewhere there in?

#13

Yeah, this is the way you should do it:

-- Module script
local module = {}

function module.SetUp()
    ... -- Your Setup code here
end

return module

-- Other script
local module = require(<Path to module script>)
module.SetUp() -- Call the set up

Alternatively, you could do this:

-- Module script alternative
local module = {}

local function SetUp() -- This can only be called from within the script
    ... -- Your SetUp code
end

SetUp() -- Call the local function, this will run as soon as the module is required

return module

-- Other script alternative
require(<Path to module>) -- This will run the SetUp function

The reason I made the function local is because SetUp is rarely used more than once per require(), so making it local prevents it from being called. If this is not what you want then you should use the first version instead.

1 Like