Run worldedit.privs inside and outside of worldedit.can_edit_volume

Never run worldedit.can_edit_volume without worldedit.privs surrounding
it

worldedit_commands/init.lua

@@ -291,9 +291,11 @@ minetest.register_chatcommand("/set", {
 	privs = {},
 	func = worldedit.privs(safe_region(function(name, param)
 		local pos1, pos2 = worldedit.pos1[name], worldedit.pos2[name]
-		local node = get_node(name, param)
-		local count = worldedit.set(pos1, pos2, node)
-		worldedit.player_notify(name, count .. " nodes set")
+		if worldedit.can_edit_volume(area:iterp(pos1, pos2)) then
+			local node = get_node(name, param)
+			local count = worldedit.set(pos1, pos2, node)
+			worldedit.player_notify(name, count .. " nodes set")
+		end
 	end, check_set)),
 })
 

worldedit_protection/init.lua

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 --if there's no protection mod, no worldedit means no editing, worldedit means editing anywhere (old behaviour)
---if there's a protection mod, no worldedit means editing only in your area, worldedit means editing in no-man's land too, areas means editing anywhere.
+--if there's a protection mod (and it's creative mode), no worldedit means editing only in your area, worldedit means editing in no-man's land too, and areas means editing anywhere.
 
 --let the other mod load first
 minetest.after(0, function()
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ minetest.after(0, function()
 end)
 
 --[[
+worldedit.privs replaces privs = {worldedit = true}, and also helps bypass volume permission checks.
 Usage:
   In chatcommand:
     privs = {}
@@ -18,12 +19,17 @@ Usage:
   In if statement:
     name = minetest.get_player_name(node)
     if worldedit.privs() then
+
+Returns:
+  nil (      false) for no permission to worldedit           anywhere,
+  1   (      true ) for    permission to worldedit at least somewhere, and
+  2   (extra true ) for                  worldediting      everywhere without checking for further permission.
 --]]
 --I wanted this function to directly choose the privileges for the chat command, but it only applies once.
 --privs={worldedit=true             [, server=true]}
 --privs={worldedit=worldedit.priv() [, server=true]}
 --instead, I had to wrap the rest of func = .
-worldedit.privs = function(func)
+worldedit.privs = function(--[[name, ]]func--[[, param]])
 	--This runs a function for a chatcommand's func = ,
 	--or it can be used directly in an if statement.
 	if func == nil then
@@ -33,20 +39,26 @@ worldedit.privs = function(func)
 	--this silly syntax was copied from safe_region, which is actually executed on chatcommand registration, and must return a function instead of the result of a function.
 	--The innermost anonymous function is declared. Then safe_region executes, adding a function wrapper around that function. Then worldedit.privs gets that as an argument, and adds another wrapper. The doubly-wrapped function is the one registered as a chatcommand.
 	return function(name, param)
-		if not minetest.setting_getbool("creative_mode") or not PROTECTION_MOD_EXISTS then
+		if minetest.check_player_privs(name, {areas=true}) then
+			--You can set areas, so you are allowed to worldedit them too.
+			--The ability to set the whole world as owned by yourself is already potentially destructive, what's more destructive capability?
+			func(name, param)
+			return 2 --edit everywhere without checks
+		elseif not minetest.setting_getbool("creative_mode") or not PROTECTION_MOD_EXISTS then
 			--no protection mod, or not the kind of world where people can just create nodes out of thin air,
 			--worldedit privilege means editing anywhere
 			if minetest.check_player_privs(name, {worldedit=true}) then
 				func(name, param)
-				return true
+				return 2 --edit everywhere without checks
 			else
-				return false
+				--func(name, param) placeholder
+				return nil --edit nowhere
 			end
 		else
 			--protection mod, can edit inside your area without worldedit privilege
 			--(worldedit and areas let you edit in no-man's land and other-owned area)
 			func(name, param)
-			return true
+			return 1 --edit at least somewhere, with checks
 		end
 	end
 end
@@ -55,21 +67,35 @@ end
 --(should be the same functions as safe_region)
 --also check for permission when region is set? no, //stack goes outside the boundaries.
 --so the region is defined per-command on exec.
-worldedit.can_edit_volume = function(name, pos1, pos2) --, func?
-	--old you-can-worldedit-everything behaviour.
-	if not PROTECTION_MOD_EXISTS or minetest.check_player_privs(name, {areas=true}) then
-		--If there's no mod, worldedit.privs already required that you have the worldedit privilege,then if you were able to run this command, then you have the worldedit privilege.
-		--Or, you can set areas, so you are allowed to worldedit them too. The ability to set the whole world as owned by yourself is already potentially destructive, what's more destructive capability?
+--//move has disconnected sections, so it's passed as a list of points.
+--which are deduplicated.
+worldedit.can_edit_volume = function(--[[name, ]]volume, func--[[, param]])
+	--volume is before func, unlike safe_region having func before count
+	--because func may be removed to have can_edit_volume in an if statement
+	--like worldedit.privs can be
+	if func == nil then
+		func = function(name, param) end
+	end
+
+	--worldedit.privs was run once to prevent safe_region large area warnings,
+	--then safe_region was run to prevent unnecessary large-scale permission checks
+	--then can_edit_volume is run before //set to honor areas
+	--then worldedit.privs is run again to attempt skipping checks (resusing the same code)
+	--then set is finally run.
+
+	--worldedit.privs said that 'name' can use worldedit at least somewhere
+	--	return value 1 (or 2) before this function was run.
+
+	--Try skipping volume permission checks.
+	if worldedit.privs() == 2 then
+		func(name, param)
 		return true
 	end
-	--new ownership-based behaviour
 
 	--[[I need to use a special per-command region (think /stack, or even worse, /move), the same one safe_region uses, but corner points instead of count... instead of a for loop interpolating between pos1 and pos2]]--
 
-	--all-or-nothing here
-	--local pos1, pos2 = worldedit.pos1[name], worldedit.pos2[name]
-	pos1, pos2 = worldedit.sort_pos(pos1, pos2) --does this matter?
-	for i in area:iterp(pos1, pos2) do
+	--all or nothing here
+	for i in volume do
 --[[
 		THIS SECTION IGNORES the distinction of area that is owned by someone else, but still editable
 		this is treated as area owned by the editor, or no-man's land depending on if it's shared with one person or everyone
@@ -84,6 +110,7 @@ worldedit.can_edit_volume = function(name, pos1, pos2) --, func?
 			if minetest.is_protected(i, name) then
 				--already checked the ability to make it mine (areas)
 				minetest.chat_send_player(name, "Someone else owns at least part of what you want to edit")
+				--func(name, param) placeholder
 				return false
 			end
 			--it's mine
@@ -93,6 +120,7 @@ worldedit.can_edit_volume = function(name, pos1, pos2) --, func?
 		--can I edit that?
 		elseif not minetest.check_player_privs(name, {worldedit=true}) then --cache this check?
 			minetest.chat_send_player(name, "You can only edit area in which you own a plot (missing worldedit privilege)")
+			--func(name, param) placeholder
 			return false
 		end
 	end
@@ -101,5 +129,6 @@ worldedit.can_edit_volume = function(name, pos1, pos2) --, func?
 	--a) owned by me,
 	--b) owned by no one and I have the worldedit privilege, and/or
 	--c) I have the areas privilege and it's possibly owned by someone else.
+	func(name, param)
 	return true
 end