Usergroups and additional usergroup in vBSuperPMs - lite + Pro

[synseal]

I would like someone if possible who has good knowledge of how usergroups work to explain this issue to me that I have been having with a modification.

Don't worry about the modification itself, I would like your opinion on whether this "ADDITIONAL usergroup" should override the primary usergroup in this situation!?

Ill try to keep it easy...

My forum has a usergroup that is not allowed to post links in Private Messages using a specific modification.

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/external/2015/03/13.jpg

Please have a good look at the image you will see the two user groups I have highlighted which shows what they can and cannot do.

I want for e.g Veterans to NOT be allowed to post links in PM's UNLESS that usergroup makes a donation to the forum using vbulletins paid subscription which then places that person under an ADDITIONAL usergroup using this part of the paid subscription here. You will know that places them into a second usergroup which allows me to keep their user title fundamentally the same but at the same time gives them the extra permissions dependent on how that ADDITIONAL user-group is set up.


https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/external/2015/03/14.jpg

SO this means that in the first image there is a conflict of permissions because one usergroup can post links and one user-group cannot due to these usergroups merging.

TK Veteran = who cannot post links.

Forum Supporter = is allowed to post links (extra bonus) due to donation... Following so far lol.

So I have always been of the understanding that vbulletin will choose YES rather than no as YES always overrides no. It even states it here https://www.vbulletin.com/docs/html/main/acp_permissions_overview_multiple_groups

So a TK veteran who has paid a donation that is now in placed in the additional user group of Forum supporter, the forum should choose YES to allow that TK vet with additional permissions of a forum supporter to now post links.....

I have been told that this is not the case from the modification developer..

[Lynne]

Does the primary usergroup have Allow Users to have Member Groups set to Yes? If not, then they won't inherit any permissions from any secondary usergroup.

And yes, a Yes always overrides a No in default vbulletin permissions. But, the modification owner could be doing the permissions differently. They would know.

[synseal]

Thank you for your fast reply. The primary usergroup TK veteran is set to Yes.

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/external/2015/03/11.jpg

[DragonByte Tech]

As I am the developer responsible for the modification in question, I want to clarify how the modification works.

As you can see by the screenshot, the way usergroup permissions works in vBSuperPMs is a simple tickbox system; ticked means "this usergroup cannot use links" and unticked means "this usergroup can use links".

Here is the exact code that reads the tickboxes: is_member_of($vbulletin->userinfo, explode(',', $vbulletin->options['dbtech_vbsuper_pm_no_email_message']))

My argument is therefore that this modification does work with Additional Usergroups, as it doesn't matter whether it's the user's primary or member groups that is among the usergroups ticked - they will still be blocked from using links in PMs.

The customer believes that checking whether a user is a member of ANY group that's banned from posting links is in violation of vBulletin's "yes overrides no" design standard. The customer believes that usergroups that are NOT ticked should override usergroups that ARE ticked.
What's actually happening is that usergroups that ARE ticked override usergroups that are NOT ticked. This is identical to how the "normal" vBulletin usergroup permissions would work if the vBulletin Option(s) in the first post's screenshots were Yes (i.e. disallowed from posting links) and No (i.e. allowed to post links) toggles in the default vBulletin Usergroups interface.

I maintain that permissions can go either way, e.g. a tick/yes can be used to describe both "allow" and "disallow" as per the needs of the modification in question.

As a result of my stance, the customer believes that I am not employing vBulletin's "Additional Usergroups" functionality correctly, which I disagree with.


Fillip

[synseal]

If that is the case why did you tell me to avoid using additional groups?

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/external/2015/03/12.jpg

I have never ran into this issue ever before using any other modification, as explained before you abruptly closed my thread after I asked for help from ozzy.

Please allow others to give there opinion as the way that modification is made using additional usergroups is not the same as how vbulletin usually work. I should not have to "avoid using additional usergroups" otherwise every usergroup that pays for "forum supporter" will have their user title changed rather than having these extras added to their already titled usergroup e.g VIP/Veteran etc.

[DragonByte Tech]

If that is the case why did you tell me to avoid using additional groups?I told you to avoid using additional groups because the way the permissions is set up in this mod ("yes" = disallow), additional groups works against you, not for you.

I have never ran into this issue ever before using any other modification, as explained before you abruptly closed my thread after I asked for help from ozzy.Ozzy does not work for DragonByte Technologies at this time. That being said, I can point him to this thread :)


Fillip

[synseal]

As already stated I would like opinions from others. I didn't intend on making this here to get support from you. You had your chance to support me before rudely closing my thread on your "support site" when I was clearly still unhappy.

I would like an unbiased opinion so respectfully can you and ozzy please now stay out of it. :) thanks.

[DragonByte Tech]

You would only get an unbiased opinion if the people giving said opinion had both sides of the story, and I've now posted my side of it.

For the record, telling people they "haven't a clue" is also considered quite rude in most circles :)

I'll await the responses from the unbiased folks :)


Fillip

[synseal]

There should have been no other side to this in my opinion. I never mentioned the modification in the first post nor the title, I even blanked out your details on the screenshot not to involve you. It is you that jumped in trying to explain why this modification works backwards to all other modifications as already mentioned.

You should not expect me to do all this (https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showpost.php?p=2540449&postcount=5) just to get your modification to work.

Its simple, the additional usergroup if YES and the primary usergroup is NO, it is still a YES as per the manual.

Maybe you coded this mod the other way round but that is what is expected usually when said person purchases a modification.

[ForceHSS]

Why not set it up it moves them to the new group and removes the old group the only way would be to make the new group as primary. But if you really want this mod to work in a different way than it has been coded then you have the option to get a one off version that a coder can recode it the way you need but you would need to pay for that and it won't be cheap. I use the pro version of this mod myself and have it set a way that it works, it just takes time to set it up and a lot of testing, but you can make it work the way you want if you just take the time to set up all the permissions and groups the right way

[synseal]

Hi thanks for that but I am not asking them to code anything different I am asking for what is expected when using additional usergroups. The primary usergroup should inherit all addtional usergroups permissions. That's the Vbull rules.

It clearly outlines this here in the usergroup settings.

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/external/2015/03/11.jpg

[ozzy47]

There is no rules when it comes to writing how a modification works, other that this:

You may not post any plugin, product, style, or other code that is encrypted in any way. All code must be visible source.

No where in the "Rules" does it state anything about usergroup permissions.

[ForceHSS]

Hi thanks for that but I am not asking them to code anything different I am asking for what is expected when using additional usergroups. The primary usergroup should inherit all addtional usergroups permissions. That's the Vbull rules.

It clearly outlines this here in the usergroup settings.

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/external/2015/03/11.jpg
I understand where you are coming from I have mine set up this way and have got it to work but it takes a lot of testing with group permissions and the mod permissions but I got it

[synseal]

Ozzy47 and DB.

Would you like me to go back over to your "support site" that you silenced me on even though I had a very valid issue please let me know otherwise do as I ask and stay out of this please and let others give their opinions.

--------------- Added 1426393974 at 1426393974 ---------------

I understand where you are coming from I have mine set up this way and have got it to work but it takes a lot of testing with group permissions and the mod permissions but I got it

What this mod requires you to do is change every other settings you have in the additional usergroup around! just to sute one modification that is backwards wired.

[ozzy47]

This is a open forum, anyone can reply here, I don't need to be told to stay out of anything. Also may I point out, I do not work for DBTech, so you did not ask for support on my site.

[synseal]

This is a open forum, anyone can reply here, I don't need to be told to stay out of anything. Also may I point out, I do not work for DBTech, so you did not ask for support on my site.



You see this is what happens when you challenge anything. You get attacked from all sides and it ends up as an issue that has nothing to do with my first post WHICH IS WHY I ASKED FOR CERTAIN PLL TO STAY OUT OF IT.

WOW

[ozzy47]

Well you were the one that brought it up:

Ozzy47 and DB.

Would you like me to go back over to your "support site" that you silenced me on even though I had a very valid issue please let me know otherwise do as I ask and stay out of this please and let others give their opinions.

So when you tell people to stay out, and they challenge you on it, expect some reaction. Also when you say Ozzy47 and refer to my support site, that I am not a staff member of, I of course will call you out on that also. ;)

[synseal]

Well you were the one that brought it up:

So when you tell people to stay out, and they challenge you on it, expect some reaction. Also when you say Ozzy47 and refer to my support site, that I am not a staff member of, I of course will call you out on that also. ;)

You are clearly trying to get this thread shut down and that's fine, because of this I am going to chose to ignore you from here on.

May I ask people to look at my first posts for an explanation for this thread. Thanks.

Best wishes.

[kapii]

Hmmm, I have had no issues with mods that have usergroup permissions set up like the developer has in the mod.

So it looks to me like you have two options.

1) Code the mod up yourself, how you want it to run.
2) If you are not capable of doing that, pay someone to code it to your specifications.

[Elite_360_]

I just came here to read the comments.

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=152058&d=1426396679

[synseal]

Hmmm, I have had no issues with mods that have usergroup permissions set up like the developer has in the mod.

So it looks to me like you have two options.

1) Code the mod up yourself, how you want it to run.
2) If you are not capable of doing that, pay someone to code it to your specifications.

lol you clearly haven't read it.


Please only people that have a clue.

--------------- Added 1426398588 at 1426398588 ---------------

Lynne can you give me your honest opinion about this you answered my first post and the rest of the fanboys jumped in after DB.

What is you opinion on this on how the additional usergroups work for this modification.

Thanks.

[kapii]

lol you clearly haven't read it.
Please only people that have a clue.


I think you misspelled that, it should be, "Please only people that will agree with me, not people that have different opinions".

[synseal]

I think you misspelled that, it should be, "Please only people that will agree with me, not people that have different opinions".

Well done...

Going back to the 1st post please.

[ForceHSS]

You ask ones to read your first post but you don't seem to listen to what others are saying like my posts I have already got this to work but you don't seem to be interested in this so if you can't be bothered to go over the settings and take the time then I see no point in replying any more here

[ozzy47]

Just because it is not working like you want it to, does not mean it's wrong. This type of functionality is built into vBulletin, is_member_of and is working as intended by the vBulletin developers.

As far as I can tell it has been around at least for 11 years, http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/forum/general/php-html-questions/105638-what-is-function-to-check-if-user-is-member-of-a-usergroup?p=1310794#post1310794

So before you go around telling people how things are supposed to work, or that they don't have a clue what they are talking about, I suggest you do your research.

You have two developers here, that have a total combined modification release of 315 +/- so I would think they know what they are talking about versus someone who has no modifications released. ;)

[kh99]

My opinion is that it's reasonable the way it is, and it probably works the way people would expect. And as Fillip pointed out, if you think about the option as "Yes, I want to exclude this group" then the inheritance works like you say it should.

However, you have a point. If the "sense" of the option were reversed so that you were choosing which groups were allowed links, then it would be useful for forums that wanted to sell that feature in a paid subscription. (Edit: yeah, it can still be done using primary groups, but I think the reason secondary groups exist is because it's easier to manage "add on" permissions). I had never thought about that myself, and I'm going to consider that in the future (well, if I ever develop another mod that is :) ). But that doesn't make it wrong, and it looks to me like you were given a reasonable reply.

You guys need to stop bickering. Don't post anything else that isn't related to the question.

[synseal]

You ask ones to read your first post but you don't seem to listen to what others are saying like my posts I have already got this to work but you don't seem to be interested in this so if you can't be bothered to go over the settings and take the time then I see no point in replying any more here

I apologies about that but you edited your post before I got chance to see it. "Last edited by ForceHSS : Today at 02:35." Going back to your post now shows me they way you have set this up and I thank you for the input but I do not want to change the members user title which is what would happen if I did it that way.

Even with other modifications I have bought from DB the additional usergroup does work as it should for e.g

shoutbox

These examples are as followed.

When a TK veteran buys " forum supporter" they are given these extra permissions and it works as it should. It keeps the title and the primary usergroup the same but adds these extra features that are ticked in the image.

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/external/2015/03/9.jpg

Thanks/like mod DBs.

Same as above, this allows forum supporters inline with TK veterans to unclick likes etc and works as it should with the additional user groups.

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/external/2015/03/10.jpg

Perhaps I am wrong in thinking that when other modifications from the same site are made they would work the same as others. If I am incorrect then I apologies but that is what I expected.

[ozzy47]

Perhaps I am wrong in thinking that when other modifications from the same site are made they would work the same as others. If I am incorrect then I apologies but that is what I expected.

Those mods you mentioned work a bit different when checking permissions. They use something like:

if (!($forumperms & $vbulletin->bf_ugp_forumpermissions['canview']))While the mod in the first post uses something like this:

if (is_member_of($vbulletin->userinfo, explode(',', $vbulletin->options['default_online_groups'])))Two totally different ways of checking, and both are legit, it just depends on how the coder who wrote the mod decided to do it.

[synseal]

Those mods you mentioned work a bit different when checking permissions. They use something like:

if (!($forumperms & $vbulletin->bf_ugp_forumpermissions['canview']))While the mod in the first post uses something like this:

if (is_member_of($vbulletin->userinfo, explode(',', $vbulletin->options['default_online_groups'])))Two totally different ways of checking, and both are legit, it just depends on how the coder who wrote the mod decided to do it.

Yes but WHY do they work different? they should work the same and take into account the additional usergroup by choosing YES out of the Yes No confliction to work as ALL other modifications do. This is my point or you should state in the selling page on your site that it does not work with additional users or change the modification so that Admins can add these features as an extra.

Im no expert by far but I know how mods work and this is the first mod I have used that does not take this into account with the additional usergroup.

Downloads II is the same.

on my site

Zero posters cannot download.
Zero posters + forum supporter can. It looks at the addtional usergroup and chooses yes out of the yes no conflict.

[Lynne]

As far as I can tell, and I will say that I don't know this mod at all, but it looks like the permission checks are being done correctly for this modification. The Primary Usergroup has a Yes for not allowed. It's kinda like the default usergroup permission of "Follow Forum Moderation Rules" in which a Yes means no moderation and a No means there is moderation. That one always seemed 'backwards' to me, but it was done that way so the Yes overrides the No. I think you may be trying to use the mod a bit differently than the developer wrote it to be used. I've downloaded several mods that were close to what I wanted, but not exactly, and so I had to change them to work how I wanted them to work on my site. So, really, I think you could just change the permissions check line to how you want it on your site and things will be just fine for your site.

[DragonByte Tech]

Yes but WHY do they work different?They work different because we wanted to avoid forcing administrators from having to go through multiple vBOptions, ticking potentially hundreds of boxes, in order for their forum to continue to operate as it did prior to installing the modification.

Imagine you are running a forum with 100 usergroups, because you're running a gaming clan forum that spans multiple different games, so you need fine-tuned permission control. You want to ban new clan members from posting links in PMs. There are a total of 10 usergroups that belong to "new clan members" for the various clans.

Scenario 1: You have to tick 10 boxes in 5 different settings in order to ban "new clan members" from posting links.
Scenario 2: You have to tick 90 boxes in 5 different settings in order to allow "full clan members", as well as all your staff, to post links.

I don't think you'll find anyone who would claim that Scenario 2 is the most user-friendly scenario.
Scenario 1 provides the most user-friendly experience for new installs.

This is why the setting was created in a backwards way.


PS: It's funny you should bring up our Thanks mod, considering the most frequently asked question from new customers is "I installed this mod and nobody can click any thanks button, where is the button to click thanks?" because we employ Scenario 2 in that mod.

There has literally not been a single week in recent memory where we have not received that question. It costs us, as well as our customers, time and money as a result.
The customer is frustrated because the modification appears not to work, so they feel like they have wasted their money.
We are frustrated because we have to answer the same question eleventy bajillion times.

I'm sure there's a way to solve this that works both ways, but thus far I haven't been able to think of it.


Fillip

[synseal]

Thanks for the explanation.

I did say this runs backwards on your site and you told me I was looking at the additional usergroup fundamentally wrong when I wasn't, which is why I said you haven't a clue. I wasn't wrong about this and how VB operates but I apologies for saying that to you.

With what you say above will your future Modification releases work the way this Modification does with additional usergroups or is this just a one off cause Ozzy wrote it. I seriously want to know as you offered me store credit and refused a refund and I wouldn't want to buy anything else further from your site that works this way round.

No offence its a serious question thanks.

[DragonByte Tech]

That would depend on the nature of the functionality in question. If we ever were to add functionality that has the potential to negatively impact the stock functionality until such a time as the administrator has configured the mod, yes we would absolutely add a "backwards" setting like that again.

In a similar vein to the Thanks mod, we would have also gone with a "backwards" setting if we were writing the modification for the first time today, but with the knowledge of what the current permissions scheme has caused in terms of the support load.

In short, we can offer absolutely no guarantee that any of our existing, nor future mods will not contain such a permissions scheme.

As for the refund policy, this is clearly laid out in the Terms of Service which you gave us express notice you had read in full & agreed to, before you submitted your payment to us. The nature of digital software means that offering refunds for products that have been downloaded (and especially installed) would open us up to getting scammed. I'm not saying you are a scammer, I'm saying that this is unfortunately one of those cases of malicious individuals ruining it for the rest of you.

The fact that, on a case-by-case basis, we offer store credit is a middle ground where even if we are getting scammed, we lose less money than if we were scammed by a full refund.

Full refunds are only available if our system shows no record of the product being accessed/downloaded prior to requesting the refund.

All of that being said, this isn't the correct forum to discuss DragonByte Technologies' policies.


Fillip

[John Lester]

Those mods you mentioned work a bit different when checking permissions. They use something like:

if (!($forumperms & $vbulletin->bf_ugp_forumpermissions['canview']))While the mod in the first post uses something like this:

if (is_member_of($vbulletin->userinfo, explode(',', $vbulletin->options['default_online_groups'])))Two totally different ways of checking, and both are legit, it just depends on how the coder who wrote the mod decided to do it.

Is it possible to code an option in the ACP to select between the two types of permission checks? Or would that cause a conflict in the code somewhere?

I realize it would almost double the code as you would have to do an "if such and such in the acp is checked use permissions a (or b)" for each option, which could be more of a hassle than it's worth.

[kh99]

The question's been answered, please take any additional support discussion to the dbtech forum or PM.

[Paul M]

Kevin has cleaned this up of silly arguments. please act like grown ups.

JFYI, working "backwards" as you call it is unusual, but also fine, there are no "rules" about it.

[John Lester]

Just so I don't get a warning or whatever, can we discuss my questions posted above? Or should I start a new thread or drop it altogether?

[synseal]

Just so I don't get a warning or whatever, can we discuss my questions posted above? Or should I start a new thread or drop it altogether?

As the thread starter I don't mind it being discussed as it still conforms to the thread subject at hand and I would also like this to work as all D-bytes other modifications do.

As said it is "unusual" for Modifications to work this way round so it may be beneficial for others that want it to work the "normal" way round way.

Unless DB are considering this already, I don't know?

(edit) please consider this the lite version as that works the same way.

So is there is no reason this cannot be discussed here according to the rules?

[TheLastSuperman]

Is it possible to code an option in the ACP to select between the two types of permission checks? Or would that cause a conflict in the code somewhere?

I realize it would almost double the code as you would have to do an "if such and such in the acp is checked use permissions a (or b)" for each option, which could be more of a hassle than it's worth.

If the author checks using two differnet bits of code then it can be done, usually its not "double" the code either i.e. if the .xml file was 2mb it doesn't go to 4mb just by adding in a small amount of code to "check" something. Basically the author could add in a new setting in the setting group of the mods xml, then in the primary plugin that handles or initiates the parsing simply add the check to that plugin and have it check the new setting, if it does or does not match or equals this THEN do what you want done or not done etc. Edit: You could also have it check and set a variable, later in the plugin or in a plugin that works in conjunction with another - you then say IF the variable = this, do this etc.

[synseal]

DragonByte Tech.

Is there any plans on making this modification work with the additional usergroups anytime soon so Admins can configure it the usual way or is this never going to be an option?

Just saying - I would pay allot more for this mod if it had that ability...........

[John Lester]

If the author checks using two differnet bits of code then it can be done, usually its not "double" the code either i.e. if the .xml file was 2mb it doesn't go to 4mb just by adding in a small amount of code to "check" something. Basically the author could add in a new setting in the setting group of the mods xml, then in the primary plugin that handles or initiates the parsing simply add the check to that plugin and have it check the new setting, if it does or does not match or equals this THEN do what you want done or not done etc. Edit: You could also have it check and set a variable, later in the plugin or in a plugin that works in conjunction with another - you then say IF the variable = this, do this etc.

Ah, I thought that two sets of code would have to be written, a check and a different permission set. It looks like it's not as complicated as I thought it was :)

[synseal]

DragonByte Tech.

Is there any plans on making this modification work with the additional usergroups anytime soon so Admins can configure it the usual way or is this never going to be an option?

Can you reply to this please.