mirror of
				https://github.com/Mikaela/Limnoria.git
				synced 2025-10-25 05:27:23 +02:00 
			
		
		
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
		
			119 lines
		
	
	
		
			6.7 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Plaintext
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			119 lines
		
	
	
		
			6.7 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Plaintext
		
	
	
	
	
	
| Ok, some some explanation of the capabilities system is probably in
 | |
| order.  With most IRC bots (including the ones I've written myself
 | |
| prior to this one) "what a user can do" is set in one of two ways.  On
 | |
| the *really* simple bots, each user has a numeric "level" and commands
 | |
| check to see if a user has a "high enough level" to perform some
 | |
| operation.  On bots that are slightly more complicated, users have a
 | |
| list of "flags" whose meanings are hardcoded, and the bot checks to
 | |
| see if a user possesses the necessary flag before performing some
 | |
| operation.  Both methods, IMO, are rather arbitrary, and force the
 | |
| user and the programmer to be unduly confined to less expressive
 | |
| constructs.
 | |
| 
 | |
| This bot is different.  Every user has a set of "capabilities" that is
 | |
| consulted every time they give the bot a command.  Commands, rather
 | |
| than checking for a user level of 100, or checking if the user has an
 | |
| "o" flag, are instead able to check if a user has the "owner"
 | |
| capability.  At this point such a difference might not seem
 | |
| revolutionary, but at least we can already tell that this method is
 | |
| self-documenting, and easier for users and developers to understand
 | |
| what's truly going on.
 | |
| 
 | |
| If that was all, well, the capability system would be "cool", but not
 | |
| many people would say it was "awesome".  But it *is* awesome!  Several
 | |
| things are happening behind the scene that make it awesome, and these
 | |
| are things that couldn't happen if the bot was using numeric
 | |
| userlevels or single-character flags.  First, whenever a user issues
 | |
| the bot a command, the command dispatcher checks to make sure the user
 | |
| doesn't have the "anticapability" for that command.  An anticapability
 | |
| is a capability that, instead of saying "what a user can do", says
 | |
| what a user *cannot* do.  It's formed rather simply by adding a dash
 | |
| ("-") to the beginning of a capability; "rot13" is a capability, and
 | |
| "-rot13" is an anticapability.  Anyway, when a user issues the bot a
 | |
| command, perhaps "calc" or "help", the bot first checks to make sure
 | |
| the user doesn't have the "-calc" or the "-help" capabilities before
 | |
| even considering responding to the user.  So commands can be turned on
 | |
| or off on a *per user* basis, offering finegrained control not often
 | |
| (if at all!) seen in other bots.
 | |
| 
 | |
| But that's not all!  The capabilities system also supports *Channel*
 | |
| capabilities, which are capabilities that only apply to a specific
 | |
| channel; they're of the form "#channel,capability".  Whenever a user
 | |
| issues a command to the bot in a channel, the command dispatcher also
 | |
| checks to make sure the user doesn't have the anticapability for that
 | |
| command *in that channel*, and if the user does, the bot won't respond
 | |
| to the user in the channel.  Thus now, in addition to having the
 | |
| ability to turn individual commands on or off for an individual user,
 | |
| we can now turn commands on or off for an individual user on an
 | |
| individual channel!
 | |
| 
 | |
| So when a user "foo" sends a command "bar" to the bot on channel
 | |
| "#baz", first the bot checks to see if the user has the anticapability
 | |
| for the command by itself, "-bar".  If so, it returns right then and
 | |
| there, compltely ignoring the fact that the user issued that command
 | |
| to it.  If the user doesn't have that anticapability, then the bot
 | |
| checks to see if the user issued the command over a channel, and if
 | |
| so, checks to see if the user has the antichannelcapability for that
 | |
| command, "#baz,-bar".  If so, again, he returns right then and there
 | |
| and doesn't even think about responding to the bot.  If neither of
 | |
| these anticapabilities are present, then the bot just responds to the
 | |
| user like normal.
 | |
| 
 | |
| From a programmatical perspective, capabilties are easy to use and
 | |
| flexible.  Any command can check if a user has any capability, even
 | |
| ones not thought of when the bot was originally written.
 | |
| Commands/Callbacks can add their own capabilities -- it's as easy as
 | |
| just checking for a capability and documenting somewhere that a user
 | |
| needs that capability to do something.
 | |
| 
 | |
| From an end-user perspective, capabilities remove a lot of the mystery
 | |
| and esotery of bot control, in addition to giving the user absolutely
 | |
| finegrained control over what users are allowed to do with the bot.
 | |
| Additionally, defaults can be set by the end-user for both individual
 | |
| channels and for the bot as a whole, letting an end-user set the
 | |
| policy he wants the bot to follow for users that haven't yet
 | |
| registered in his user database.  It's really a revolution! 
 | |
| 
 | |
| There are several default capabilities the bot uses.  The most
 | |
| important of these is the "owner" capability.  This capability allows
 | |
| the person having it to use *any* command.  It's best to keep this
 | |
| capability reserved to people who actually have access to the shell
 | |
| the bot is running on.
 | |
| 
 | |
| There is also the "admin" capability for non-owners that are highly
 | |
| trusted to administer the bot appropriately.  They can do things such
 | |
| as change the bot's nick, globally enable/disable commands, cause the
 | |
| bot to ignore a given user, set the prefixchar, report bugs, etc.
 | |
| They generally cannot do administration related to channels, which is
 | |
| reserved for people with the next capability.
 | |
| 
 | |
| People who are to administer channels with the bot should have the
 | |
| #channel,op capability -- whatever channel they are to administrate,
 | |
| they should have that channel capability for "op".  For example, since
 | |
| I want inkedmn to be an administrator in #supybot, I'll give him the
 | |
| #supybot,op capability.  This is in addition to his admin capability,
 | |
| since the admin capability doesn't give the person having it control
 | |
| over channels.  #channel,op is used for such things as
 | |
| giving/receiving ops, kickbanning people, lobotomizing the bot,
 | |
| ignoring users in the channel, and managing the channel capabilities.
 | |
| The #channel,op capability is also basically the equivalent of the
 | |
| owner capability for capabilities involving #channel -- basically
 | |
| anyone with the #channel,op capability is considered to have all
 | |
| positive capabilities and no negative capabilities for #channel.
 | |
| 
 | |
| One other globally important capability exists: "trusted".  This is a
 | |
| command that basically says "This user can be trusted not to try and
 | |
| crash the bot." It allows users to call commands like Math.icalc,
 | |
| which potentially could cause the bot to begin a calculation that
 | |
| could potentially never return (a calculation like 10**10**10**10).
 | |
| Another command that requires the trusted capability is Utilties.re,
 | |
| which (due to the regular expression implementation in Python (and any
 | |
| other language that uses NFA regular expressions, like Perl or Ruby or
 | |
| Lua or ...) which can allow a regular expression to take exponential
 | |
| time to process).  Consider what would happen if the someone gave the
 | |
| bot the command 're [strjoin "" s/./ [dict go] /] [dict go]'
 | |
| 
 | |
| Other plugins may require different capabilities; the Factoids plugin
 | |
| requires #channel,factoids, the Topic plugin requires #channel,topic,
 | |
| etc.
 | 
