-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 300
Description
Server Implementation
Paper
Server Version
1.21.7
Describe the bug
Hello,
I’m experiencing an issue with certain advanced FastAsyncWorldEdit commands.
For example, the following command:
//replace [35:3]&![|[35:3][4][4]] 42
does not behave consistently.
I’ve attached a recap made by my builder:
- The first screenshot shows the state before running the command.
- The next two show the result of two separate executions of the exact same command — the output differs each time.
- The last one shows the behavior after running
//undo, which doesn’t work as expected.
Overall, the problem seems to occur when using complex masks, and especially the //undo command becomes unreliable or broken.
I’m running the latest version of FAWE (just downloaded and tested the newest release), and I’ve tried disabling all other plugins with no change. The server is running on Paper 1.21.7 (latest release as well).
Would it be possible to check why this inconsistency and undo issue happens?
Thanks in advance for your help!
To Reproduce
Result of //count [35:3]&![|[35:3][4][4]] on the same selection as in the screenshots here.
The bug also occurs with the following commands:
//count ~[35:3][4][4]//count ~[35:3]//count |[35:3]//count |[0]
Interestingly, the bug does not seem to occur with:
//count ~[0]
The <, >, and ! operators from WorldEdit appear unaffected, whereas the FAWE-specific | and ~ operators exhibit the issue.
Expected behaviour
that the fawe mask operators work as they should. Only those from fawe are buggy, those from Arceon, EzEdit or others work very well
Screenshots / Videos
No response
Error log (if applicable)
No response
Fawe Debugpaste
https://athion.net/ISPaster/paste/view/6f7c4e310d1c4f72b9d5935a81b51cc4
Fawe Version
FastAsyncWorldEdit version 2.13.1
Checklist
- I have included a Fawe debugpaste.
- I am using the newest build from https://ci.athion.net/job/FastAsyncWorldEdit/ and the issue still persists.
Anything else?
No response