mirror of
https://github.com/NoCheatPlus/NoCheatPlus.git
synced 2024-09-03 19:00:30 +02:00
Add comments.
This commit is contained in:
parent
5500cd15bf
commit
157e957122
|
@ -1736,6 +1736,7 @@ public class BlockProperties {
|
|||
for (int z = iMinZ; z <= iMaxZ; z++){
|
||||
|
||||
// TODO: Might move above block check right here.
|
||||
// TODO: Given workaround fixes, could go for the much-simplified-top-down-loop once more.
|
||||
|
||||
for (int y = iMaxY; y >= iMinY; y --){
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -1744,7 +1745,10 @@ public class BlockProperties {
|
|||
|
||||
final int id = access.getTypeId(x, y, z);
|
||||
final long flags = blockFlags[id];
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
// TODO: LIQUID could be a quick return as well.
|
||||
// (IGN_PASSABLE might still allow standing on.)
|
||||
if ((flags & F_GROUND) == 0 || (flags & ignoreFlags) != 0){
|
||||
continue;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
@ -1805,6 +1809,8 @@ public class BlockProperties {
|
|||
// Ground found and the block above is passable, no need to check above.
|
||||
return true;
|
||||
}
|
||||
// TODO: Else if variable : continue ?
|
||||
// TODO: Highest block is always the foot position, even if just below 1.0, a return true would be ok?
|
||||
|
||||
final int aboveId = access.getTypeId(x, y + 1, z);
|
||||
final long aboveFlags = blockFlags[aboveId];
|
||||
|
@ -1851,7 +1857,7 @@ public class BlockProperties {
|
|||
break;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// TODO: Is this variable workaround still necessary ?
|
||||
// TODO: Is this variable workaround still necessary ? Has this not been tested above already (passable workaround!)
|
||||
// TODO: This might be seen as a violation for many block types.
|
||||
// TODO: More distinction necessary here.
|
||||
if (variable){
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user