Merged
Conversation
cleartext password storage is bad practice.
returns nil after first run
There is no point in checking other params if this part fails.
password is required
variable save_needed is not used for anything else
also fixed a french mistake: player doesn't own these -> player owns these
besides, "nil" is a valid name. This way there is no confusion.
stash commit...
- permit admin to disband a faction without having any factions himself - permit admin to skip password check (he can supply any placeholder) - permit admin to disband his own single faction - don't call get_owner or valid_password if is admin - streamline duplicate code
- check for no factions first -> simpler code - whitespace: linebreak for easier reading
- whitespace linebreaks for easier reading and consistancy - update helptext signiture (also for disband) to reflect actual requirements and standard - loop members into table for consistant and easier to read code
- move depricated log entry to start of get_player_faction(), no point in skipping warning. - simplify get_player_factions() - whitespace linebreaks for easier reading and consistancy - loop members into table for consistant and easier to read code - simplify get_owned_factions() - make player_name param optional, default to caller (still need to check as caller name can be missing) - loop factions into table for consistant and easier to read code (also presumpted faster)
- don't call get_player_factions() unless needed - use get_player_factions() instead of depricated get_player_faction() - truth check of password in valid_password() for easier understanding of code - remove explicit nil check where not needed
- update help text to standard syntax - remove unnecessary param count checks - simplify leave_faction() argument checking
- simplify and reduce calls of core.get_player_privs() - update help text to standard syntax - streamline duplicate code - remove unnecessary param count checks - remove explicit nil check where not needed - don't call get_owner if is admin (until needed)
- informal tone - adds missing entries
Member
|
what's the difference from this to #11? |
Contributor
Author
Contributor
|
copied from the previous pr
|
Contributor
|
though 5.10 is around the corner....so would fix that |
Contributor
Author
|
It has been three months without any issues being raised etc. I intend to merge this within a day, maybe two but certainly this year... |
BuckarooBanzay
approved these changes
Dec 31, 2024
Member
BuckarooBanzay
left a comment
BuckarooBanzay
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
didn't test but looks good 👍
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.