Upstream/NoCheatPlus
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/NoCheatPlus/NoCheatPlus.git synced 2024-09-03 19:00:30 +02:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add comments.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
asofold 2013-03-08 03:05:32 +01:00
parent 5500cd15bf
commit 157e957122
1 changed files with 8 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
NCPCompat/src/main/java/fr/neatmonster/nocheatplus/utilities/BlockProperties.java
View File

@ -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){