From 2869c0f591cedf08b61e61d9a15b57507fb11b25 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: okx-code Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 00:45:19 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] remove comment --- .../main/java/vg/civcraft/mc/namelayer/GroupManager.java | 6 ------ 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/plugins/namelayer-paper/src/main/java/vg/civcraft/mc/namelayer/GroupManager.java b/plugins/namelayer-paper/src/main/java/vg/civcraft/mc/namelayer/GroupManager.java index 94fb0baac..68773b4d0 100644 --- a/plugins/namelayer-paper/src/main/java/vg/civcraft/mc/namelayer/GroupManager.java +++ b/plugins/namelayer-paper/src/main/java/vg/civcraft/mc/namelayer/GroupManager.java @@ -458,12 +458,6 @@ public class GroupManager { */ private boolean hasPlayerInheritsPerms(Group group, UUID player, PermissionType perm) { while (group != null) { - // TODO: Revisit this. Being the primary owner of a group should arguably work like OP where you, in-effect, - // have all grantable permissions. However, this would break certain civ-mechanics that use NameLayer - // permissions as feature-toggles, notably JukeAlert with snitch immunity where having the permission - // by definition means you *are* immune to snitches. Contrast this with SuperVanish where having the - // permission means you *can* vanish. Thus the .isOwnerPermission() check has been added to only give - // the OP-like behaviour to existential group permissions like "DELETE", "MERGE", and "PERMS". if (group.isOwner(player) && perm.isOwnerPermission()) { return true; }