Target permissions

[Birdulon]

Adds permissionTargeted to all applicable commands. (i.e. every command which targets a player and isn't sendmail)

The player.perm and server.perm distinction seems a bit ill-defined, things like drop seem like they should be player.drop instead of server.drop (ideally I think the true server.perm commands wouldn't have a target.perm permission at all since they would imply usage on anyone and everyone), but that might be something to leave for one big permissions rework down the track since any changes would involve db migration procedures for server operators. I think some wildcard matching would be good at some point, so admins can set things like player.* and *.spawn for convenience.

[jie65535]

My suggestion is to use @ as default permission

String permissionTargeted() default "@";

[memetrollsXD]

How about a new subpermission? player.clear.others for all commands

[memetrollsXD]

It's basically just another syntax of what you have here, looking for peoples opinions

[lhhxxxxx]

Account.hasPermission() should also be updated.

[Birdulon]

Account.hasPermission() should also be updated.

Good catch, I didn't see that it already has wildcards

[lhhxxxxx]

Account.hasPermission() should also be updated.

Good catch, I didn't see that it already has wildcards

I don't consider subpermission to be a good idea, because "player.*" seems to cover all the subpermissions under the player permission, but in fact we don't want those with player permission to have @ permission

[lhhxxxxx]

public boolean hasPermission(String permission) {
		return this.permissions.contains(permission) ||
                this.permissions.contains("*") ||
                (this.permissions.contains("player") || this.permissions.contains("player.*")) && permission.startsWith("player.") ||
                (this.permissions.contains("server") || this.permissions.contains("server.*")) && permission.startsWith("server.") ||
                (this.permissions.contains("target") || this.permissions.contains("target.*") || this.permissions.contains("@")) && permission.startsWith("target.");
	}

This could be a solution

[4Benj]

The permission system will be getting a rewrite soon to make it more expandable and to fix this sort of thing. Current plan is for * to be a first layer wildcard and ** to be an all layer wildcard

[Birdulon]

Added this

Current plan is for * to be a first layer wildcard and ** to be an all layer wildcard

EDIT: Hacky unit test over at https://github.com/Birdulon/Grasscutter/tree/TargetPermsUnitTest

[ghost]

The permission system will be getting a rewrite soon to make it more expandable and to fix this sort of thing. Current plan is for * to be a first layer wildcard and ** to be an all layer wildcard

Note that player.*.self and player.*.target might be a good alternative and will be simpler to implement than what you propose. Examples include:

• player.* - anything that starts with player.
• player.*.target - anything that matches player.*.target, where * is a wildcard
• player.*.target.* - anything that starts with player.*.target., where * is a wildcard
• player.coop.self.* - anything that starts with player.coop.self., where * is a wildcard

Implementation of wildcard can be done as regular expression, so internally it becomes:

• ^player(?:\..*)?$
• ^player\..*\.target$
• ^player\..*\.target(?:\..*)?$
• ^player\.coop\.self(?:\..*)?$

Internally, we would store list of permissions account has, then escape expression and replace \* with .*, add ^ and $ and then test it against full permission name in code. Note that last instance of \.\* should be replaced with (?:\..*)? instead so that it encompasses both player.coop.target as well as player.coop.target.join.

[Birdulon]

Fixed merge conflicts.