View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0004172 | unreal | ircd | public | 2013-02-14 21:45 | 2015-08-08 17:05 |
| Reporter | katsklaw | Assigned To | syzop | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Summary | 0004172: Add ability to hide certain usermodes in LUSERS output. | ||||
| Description | As discussed in forum post: http://forums.unrealircd.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=484 The purpose if this feature is to add the ability to hide certain users, IE Services pseudo-clients. By hiding user modes, it's then possible to hide other users as well +B or +H, +N, +A users as well. | ||||
| 3rd party modules | |||||
|
|
Should the mode-to-hide be configurable or static? |
|
|
tech: if you do this, and carefully code the clients++ / clients-- based on MODE's etc etc.. which has a lot of potential for errors (we had issues with this for several years with +H with negative user counts!!) I mean, even if you do that, then you still would have to recalculate the user count figure if the configuration value changed, as you have to recalculate who should be hidden (from the user count)... Other than that, I would like to hear if other people support this idea. There should be some real need for this, before we consider implementing it. |
|
|
An alternative would be to forgo the umode hiding and just hide IsUline() clients. That way at least services/stats are hidden. Perhaps that's a bit easier to implement since we can just ignore propagated user counts upon link/burst. I don't think a bump in UnrealProtocol would be needed either if the uplink server simply didn't update the user count when a U:Lined server linked. |
|
|
I think the only rationale for this is to stop people from gaming the SearchIRC and netsplit stats bots. If someone submits a patch for this, I will look at it, but I have no interest in coding it. |
|
|
I do understand the rationale but I think the effort, change of failure (vs) CPU usage etc makes this less desired. Unless someone has some very bright idea.. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2013-02-14 21:45 | katsklaw | New Issue | |
| 2013-02-15 21:04 | Anikwa | Note Added: 0017419 | |
| 2013-03-02 19:04 | syzop | Note Added: 0017458 | |
| 2013-03-03 01:13 | katsklaw | Note Added: 0017459 | |
| 2013-05-06 06:08 |
|
Note Added: 0017487 | |
| 2015-08-08 17:05 | syzop | Note Added: 0018632 | |
| 2015-08-08 17:05 | syzop | Status | new => closed |
| 2015-08-08 17:05 | syzop | Assigned To | => syzop |
| 2015-08-08 17:05 | syzop | Resolution | open => fixed |
