View Issue Details
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0002973||unreal||ircd||public||2006-06-15 08:09||2010-11-17 17:35|
|Status||closed||Resolution||no change required|
|Target Version||Fixed in Version|
|Summary||0002973: override bug|
|Description||As netadmin with override i cant DEOP a user if i have (+h or) +o or +a ->|
[15:56:48] * Netadmin sets mode: +oao Netadmin user user
/mode #test -o user
and then the error:
o user is a channel admin
if i dont have any modes (h,o,a) i can override just nice and with +o i can -a.
The problem is on DEOP.
Another (if netadmin with override is halfopped and not opped on the channel):
o user is a channel admin
h user is a channel admin
a user is a channel admin
|Additional Information||You can give channel modes to a user with override.|
The problem is when you try to remove them.
|Tags||No tags attached.|
|3rd party modules|
I have to say, I've never had this problem.
Sure your netadmin, not servicesadmin or etc?
||ME is using modes +iowghraAsRTxNWqztGp|
I'll be d**mned. It happens on 3.2.5, too.
I was +h at channel, and every operator flag known to God and man set.
I set my net comanager +q on the channel and me +h, and tested this out.
q tigger-away is channel owner
a tigger-away is channel owner
o tigger-away is channel owner
(when user was +q at channel)
a tigger-away is channel admin
o tigger-away is channel admin
(when user was +a at channel)
||Just tested, and verified. I think this should be fixed in 3.3.|
I think does not happen in 126.96.36.199
* Rejoined channel #test
* Netadmin sets mode: +h Netadmin
* Netadmin sets mode: +a Tester
* Netadmin sets mode: +o Tester
* Netadmin sets mode: +q Tester
* Netadmin sets mode: -q Tester
* Netadmin sets mode: -a Tester
* Netadmin sets mode: -o Tester
Unless this is something other than what I just tested.
I've tested 15 combinations of -o'ing, and 20+ combinations of -h'ing. When I am +q, +a, +o, +h, none, and target is: +q, +a, +o, +h, in a matrix.. and well.. everything seems to work :).
This bug has probably been fixed some time back then, which is quite possible with all those override bugs & fixing of those bugs :)
|2006-06-15 08:09||vonitsanet||New Issue|
|2006-06-15 16:10||JasonTik||Note Added: 0011957|
|2006-06-15 20:31||vonitsanet||Note Added: 0011962|
|2006-06-19 01:53||Zell||Note Added: 0011986|
|2006-06-19 22:24||vonitsanet||Note Added: 0011992|
|2007-04-15 20:44||WolfSage||Note Added: 0013425|
||Status||new => acknowledged|
||Relationship added||has duplicate 0003098|
|2010-07-14 17:50||syzop||Relationship added||child of 0003776|
|2010-09-06 15:07||ohnobinki||Status||acknowledged => assigned|
|2010-09-06 15:07||ohnobinki||Assigned To||=> ohnobinki|
|2010-10-22 18:53||goldenwolf||Note Added: 0016388|
|2010-11-17 17:35||syzop||Note Added: 0016421|
|2010-11-17 17:35||syzop||Status||assigned => closed|
|2010-11-17 17:35||syzop||Assigned To||ohnobinki =>|
|2010-11-17 17:35||syzop||Resolution||open => no change required|