search

CobbleSword / NachoSpigot

NachoSpigot is a fork of TacoSpigot 1.8.9 that offers several enhancements to performance as well as bug fixes.
GNU General Public License v3.0
238 stars 89 forks source link

Fast ops cause ops don't load from the file. #259

Closed sadcenter closed 2 years ago

sadcenter commented 2 years ago

Observed Behavior

Ops checks should load from the file.

Expected Behavior

Ops should load from the file.

Steps To Reproduce

Enable fast-operators in configuration

Plugin List

No response

Server Version

git-NachoSpigot-baf5f2f

Other

Fast ops are not working. Minecraft ops don't load instantly when an instance of OpList is created what causes there are no operators loaded yet, fast operators want to add every loaded operator when operators are not loaded yet(?) IMO fast ops should be by default turned to true.

Agreements

ghost commented 2 years ago

You have confirmed that you are NOT using a fork of NachoSpigot in any way. YOUR changes are not OUR faults.

sadcenter commented 2 years ago

Tested again on git-NachoSpigot-"514e752". Same as above

CyberFlameGO commented 2 years ago

Replying to https://github.com/CobbleSword/NachoSpigot/issues/259#issuecomment-974561192

Honestly it should be re-worded anyway, both to be less aggressive and to confirm that the user has tested the issue on upstream

Sculas commented 2 years ago

This is normal behavior! @HeathLoganCampbell coded fast ops like this intentionally.

Changes are also not saved, so all ops will be reset after each restart.

sadcenter commented 2 years ago

Okay, so shouldn't it be renamed or commented with information?

Sculas commented 2 years ago

Yes.

Sculas commented 2 years ago

Honestly it should be re-worded anyway, both to be less aggressive and to confirm that the user has tested the issue on upstream

@CyberFlameGO I agree. I was a little frustrated at the time when I added that (also the reason I added it in the first place), so that might've made it sound more aggressive.

andreasdc commented 2 years ago

Honestly it should be re-worded anyway, both to be less aggressive and to confirm that the user has tested the issue on upstream

@CyberFlameGO I agree. I was a little frustrated at the time when I added that (also the reason I added it in the first place), so that might've made it sound more aggressive.

Chill