better setstatus for selfbots

[Ratismal]

This PR makes minor modifications to the ClientUser#setStatus function to make it function properly for user accounts (selfbots).

Previously using the generic endpoint, setting a status programmatically on a user account would not work most of the time, and it would never adjust it on the client settings.

By modifying the ClientUserSettings object, we can circumvent this issue.

1. Modifying statuses on a user account will work 100% of the time
2. Modifying statuses on a user account selfbot will reflect on the actual client

This PR accomplishes this by

1. Checking if the ClientUser is a bot
2. If it is a user, then use the ClientUser#settings.update('status', value) function to properly update the user status
3. If it is a bot, perform the presence update as per usual

I have made a GIF demonstrating this behavior

Semantic versioning classification:

• This PR changes the library's interface (methods or parameters added)
  • This PR includes breaking changes (methods removed or renamed, parameters moved or removed)
• This PR only includes non-code changes, like changes to documentation, README, etc.

[devsnek]

it should be

if (!this.bot) this.settings.update(Constants.UserSettingsMap.status, status);
return this.setPresence({ status });

[Ratismal]

Doing that is redundant. I have done testing, and the status is globally set by just updating the settings object. This has been tested by viewing a client change from other accounts.

Considering that regular presence status sets don't work for user accounts, I see no point in making multiple calls for this.

[devsnek]

that is quite interesting, and possibly a bug :3, but if it works /shrug

[Ratismal]

I don't think it's necessarily a bug, I just think that's how it is set up for user accounts.

Bot accounts function differently, as each presence is per-shard. However, since user accounts don't shard their statuses are stored in a different place; namely, the ClientUserSettings.

I think that it works on a priority basis. For example from my experimentation:

1. If you set yourself as invisible on your client, and then modify your status using presences, you will get the modified presence. This works for online, idle, and dnd
2. If you set yourself as dnd on your client, and then modify your status using presences, you will get the modified presence only for online and idle. If you set to invisible, you become dnd
3. If you set yourself as idle, and then modify your presence, you will only get the modified presence for online. dnd and invisible will become idle
4. If you set yourself as online, nothing you do will change that

Thus, changing via presences can only make it equal or higher to your ClientUserSettings status.

[devsnek]

i only say it could be a bug because the official client dispatches a presence update when you use the ui, in addition to posting the change to user settings

[Ratismal]

Actually, upon further testing and in consideration with my writeup, I have discovered that the priority thing is indeed valid, so your suggestion was correct. If you set the presence to online and the settings to dnd, it will be online. My apologies.

[Ratismal]

After some thought and some practical experimentation, I have come to another conclusion regarding setting the presence and the user settings. Yes, both must be set, but consider how discord displays the highest status they should not be set to the same thing. The next commit will do the following:

1. Move the status code to the setPresence function rather than the setStatus. It just makes far more sense.
2. If it is a user account and status is provided in data, set the presence status to invisible.

The second change is to allow the user to be able to freely change their own status. Say, for instance, they use the setStatus function to set both their presence and user settings to online. The next time they try to manually adjust their presence using the status indicators, they will be stuck on online. Considering that for user accounts the user settings is the most likely thing to change, it makes far more sense to force the presence to be invisible and only adjust the user settings.

With this, a user will be able to set their status using either the ClientUser#setPresence or ClientUser#setStatus functions, and then freely change it manually as if nothing happened.

[amishshah]

👍