|
|
|
[
Permlink
| « Hide
]
Sidewinder Linden added a comment - 30/Jan/08 04:24 PM
Is it possible that the member had priv's to take the whole building into inventory, and then put it back? (Trying to figure out if there is any reproducible sequence that might trigger this, either as a bug or expected behavior...)
That can be definitely excluded. The member does not have permissions to do that.
They are just in the everyone role which has only the listed permissions (see screenshot). I am still able as an officer of the group to move / resize / edit the object so it may still be owned by the group but it definitely shows that member as owner.
I was able to easily reproduce this with one exception, using Take instead of Delete. Delete always returned the object to the last owner's Lost and Found. Didn't matter whether it was Havok 4 or Havok 1. The key is the "Share with Group" flag. To reproduce:
Create an object. If the "Share with Group" box is not checked, the normal member cannot move, take or delete the object. Resolving, don't believe this is a bug, as far as I know this is way the "Share with Group" tag is supposed to work.
If someone can take your items as their own without you putting said item for sale or giving it away then it IS a bug.
This is neither resolved nor misfiled. Also I advise you to check on the status of issues before going and resolving them. Not if it is the intended behavior of "Share with Group".
And it is not even a Havok 4 only issue. Just because it is being worked on doesn't mean that if it is discovered not to be an issue it should not be resolved. Marking something as resolved, is sending it back to the OP (you) to reopen or close, nothing more. Squrrel, could you please double check to make sure the objects in question are NOT using the "share with group" bit? If the bit is set we'll leave this bug closed, otherwise please open it up again with a "repro recipe" (a simple set of instructions on how to reproduce the bug for a fresh object) such as the one above.
I would love to NOT have to tackle this "bug", since I don't know the group perms system very well, but if it is real then I would consider it high priority and will figure it out. You can see it still checked in the second picture.
Ok thanks Harleen. Let's leave this one closed. The perms system is confusing, but I think this behavior agrees with that of the "share with group" bit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||