Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support fabric permissions api for better customizing carpet commands #1850

Open
Silverteal opened this issue Dec 22, 2023 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #1864
Open

Support fabric permissions api for better customizing carpet commands #1850

Silverteal opened this issue Dec 22, 2023 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #1864

Comments

@Silverteal
Copy link

Currently, carpet commands's usage limit is hard-encoded in carpet config, adding support to lucko/fabric-permissions-api will allow more accurate access control.
This may be optional or disabled by default, but I do think it would be helpful to someone like me.

@Silverteal Silverteal changed the title Support fabric permissions apis for better customizing carpet commands Support fabric permissions api for better customizing carpet commands Dec 22, 2023
@sakura-ryoko
Copy link

sakura-ryoko commented Dec 27, 2023

Generally the "lucko fabric permissions API" supports vanilla op levels, without the need for LuckPerms, FYI. Depending on how carpet implement's it's command dispatcher (I haven't looked) it's generally a trivial addition.
Perhaps I can consider a PR.

@sakura-ryoko
Copy link

sakura-ryoko commented Dec 27, 2023

The Permissions settings are pretty much coded based on Methods under the Carpet Settings, so changing to something like that is possible, but it would also break existing carpet config files if say, someone were to implement a setting of "ops" for the permissions. So, the permissions check functions need to basically be re-written, along with the config methods to make this work; and then come up with a "standard" method for the Luck Permissions nodes that all downstream dependent carpet mods will need to implement...
So it's not quite that trivial on second thought.

@altrisi altrisi linked a pull request Jan 26, 2024 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants