View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0003962unrealircdpublic2010-09-23 20:36
Reporterdarkex Assigned To 
PrioritynormalSeverityminorReproducibilityalways
Status closedResolutionduplicate 
Summary0003962: Moderated auditorium (+mu) bug requiring voice
DescriptionAs a regular user in a +mu channel, when your message is sent through IRC you will still get a requiring voice msg:

20:37:47 * requires/#test: voice

Showing both sides:

20:37:26 * Now talking in #test
20:37:26 * mode: o.hub +nt
20:37:29 * mode: @darkex +mu
20:37:44 * join/#test: _darkex darkex@cloaked-7CC3478F
20:37:47 <IRC> _darkex: hi

The other one:

20:37:44 * Now talking in #test
20:37:46 <_darkex> hi
20:37:47 * requires/#test: voice

I haven't created a patch, though would like to see a replacement error message or no warning at all, preferably the first option.
Steps To ReproduceJoin channel, +mu, regular user join, talk and gets error
TagsNo tags attached.
3rd party modules

Relationships

duplicate of 0002597 closedsyzop Feature to change the way channel modes +mu are handled. 

Activities

darkex

2010-09-22 12:54

reporter   ~0016378

Last edited: 2010-09-22 12:54

Flicking through the bugtracker reached me to http://bugs.unrealircd.org/view.php?id=3682 and http://bugs.unrealircd.org/view.php?id=2597.
Weird behaviour is triggered when someone CTCPs the channel as a regular user and mode S is bypassed.
I personally feel that the modes stay "separate", so setting +m on a +u channel only mutes the non-voices but does nothing else. Although discussion on this topic is high, I decided to bring it up again, considering that new Unreal versions are beginning to flow again.

syzop

2010-09-23 20:36

administrator   ~0016380

Last edited: 2010-09-23 20:37

Well, why not use 0002597 (and 0003682) ?
There's really no advantage in opening a new bug report, only several disadvantages.
Bringing existing issues up again 'because of recent activity' is fine, IF you comment on those existing issues, but the last thing we want is have a duplicate of XX issues just because we are more actively developing... there's no point in that.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2010-09-22 12:44 darkex New Issue
2010-09-22 12:54 darkex Note Added: 0016378
2010-09-22 12:54 darkex Note Edited: 0016378
2010-09-23 20:33 syzop Relationship added duplicate of 0002597
2010-09-23 20:36 syzop QA => Not touched yet by developer
2010-09-23 20:36 syzop U4: Need for upstream patch => No need for upstream InspIRCd patch
2010-09-23 20:36 syzop Note Added: 0016380
2010-09-23 20:36 syzop Status new => closed
2010-09-23 20:36 syzop Resolution open => duplicate
2010-09-23 20:37 syzop Note Edited: 0016380