Type of bug

Other unexpected behaviour

/ess dump all output

https://essentialsx.net/dump.html?id=657bf2884be240efaff93b32ff8ff44f

Error log (if applicable)

No response

Bug description

If you add a false (negated) permission node within the EssentialsAntiBuild's 'essentials.build..' permission node, it does not actually prevent me from placing a sign if I do '-essentials.build.place.oak_sign'

Steps to reproduce

1. Use Luckperms to set a permission node to false for 'essentials.build..' and then use sign as your placement node (essentials.build.place.oak_sign)

Expected behaviour

Should prevent all the placings of oak signs for said user specific person or group (where ever the node applies)

Actual behaviour

Should not prevent you from placing this in said user specific permission or group permissions.

I don't know why the enter to next line didn't work when I pasted it... Sorry

In LuckPerms, negating a permission node is done by setting it to false (adding false in the permission set command or clicking the little green "true" on the editor) and not by prefixing it with a -. Does this happen if you run lp group example permission set essentials.build.place.oak_sign false for example?

This is likely a PEX-era muscle memory since that was how you negated things then. Now, it's the above ^. I made the same mistake, don't worry 😄

In LuckPerms, negating a permission node is done by setting it to false (adding false in the permission set command or clicking the little green "true" on the editor) and not by prefixing it with a -. Does this happen if you run lp group example permission set essentials.build.place.oak_sign false for example?

Yes. I was just trying to use the hyphen to stress that I was indeed trying to make it negative even though I didn't actually use the hyphen. My bad. Yes when setting essentials.build.place.oak_sign to false on LuckPerms it does not actually prevent a specific group from placing this item.

OPs bypass AntiBuild protections. This isn't a bug.

OPs bypass AntiBuild protections. This isn't a bug.

Hello JRoy. I deeply respect the fact that you're trying to help on this matter. Thank you. But you have failed to ask the most minimal question of even if I was OP when testing this. I know you likely know that not all owners for servers even use OP. Regardless, I am not using OP when producing this bug. I have tested it in at least three separate occasions and can 100% confirm that it is not working correctly if I set the permission node essentials.build.place.oak_sign to false in LuckPerms via a specific user or a group for a non-OP player. I would really appreciate it if you did not close this report.

OPs bypass AntiBuild protections. This isn't a bug.

Hello JRoy. I deeply respect the fact that you're trying to help on this matter. Thank you. But you have failed to ask the most minimal question of even if I was OP when testing this. I know you likely know that not all owners for servers even use OP. Regardless, I am not using OP when producing this bug. I have tested it in at least three separate occasions and can 100% confirm that it is not working correctly if I set the permission node essentials.build.place.oak_sign to false in LuckPerms via a specific user or a group for a non-OP player. I would really appreciate it if you did not close this report.

My bad, for some reason I thought I saw OP somewhere.

Can you do /ess debug, then have a player place an oak sign (who shouldn't be able to), and then send over your log over that time period

Unable to reproduce with essentials.build.* true and essentials.build.place.oak_sign false using LuckPerms. Looks like it's preventing me from placing the sign just fine.

If you're still having issues with this on the latest version of Essentials, please open a new issue and provide verbose output for when you place the sign.