Repository navigation
Integrate with NeoForge permissions API #2029
Description
The Problem
NeoForge version of WorldEdit has no permission integrations.
A Solution
NeoForge has a permissions API, we should integrate with it for use with future permission mods.
Alternatives
No response
Anything Else?
Dependent on LuckPerms/LuckPerms#3936 for a working implementation.
Activity
MagnusHJensen commentedon Apr 11, 2022
I don't see why it's dependent on the luckperms PR?
I got it to work with ftbranks, by just adding
|| PermissionsAPI.hasPermission(player, permission);In the
ForgePermissionsProvider#VanillaPermissionsProviderIt also handles the isOp check, or atleast by default if no mods is replacing the PermissionsAPI it checks for the permission level.
me4502 commentedon Apr 11, 2022
That was mostly referring to needing a working reputable perms mod in order to properly test the implementation, we hadn't been made aware that one existed and haven't had time to look into it. If you've got a working change to WorldEdit that implements this we'd definitely appreciate a PR.
MagnusHJensen commentedon Apr 11, 2022
I would love for LuckPerms to arrive for forge.
Currently the only "major" player is FTBRanks. It has poor documentation and is no way as good/advanced as LuckPerms, but it does the job for now.
I do, I will create a PR here in a bit.
My original intention was for 1.16, but it should work the same for 1.18.
How would I go about that, make two seperate pr's?
Is it even possible to get stuff merged into the archived 1.16 version?
MagnusHJensen commentedon Apr 11, 2022
The PR #2079 would fix this integration for 1.16.5.
For 1.18 it would most likely require a working implementation either in the LuckPerms PR or for FTBRanks to re-integrate with the PermissionAPI.
me4502 commentedon Dec 31, 2022
This is fairly infeasible with the new permissions API in Forge. It's created in a way that's fairly incompatible with the way WorldEdit handles permissions. It'd require extremely large restructuring and rethinking of permission nodes, which would be a breaking change
As there are no docs on the new Permissions API - it's also not really clear if any of those limitations can be worked around
[-]Integrate with Forge permissions API[/-][+]Integrate with NeoForge permissions API[/+]electricsteve commentedon Apr 20, 2026
Any update on this?
me4502 commentedon Apr 20, 2026
The state of their permissions API hasn't gotten any better, so the last answer still applies
TheFather007 commentedon May 30, 2026
Didn't they fix it? Version 1.21.1, WE does not see LP.
me4502 commentedon May 30, 2026
NeoForge have still not fixed their permissions API, nothing has changed in the past month
TheFather007 commentedon Jun 29, 2026
me4502 commentedon Jun 29, 2026
Please do not link to non-official builds, as we cannot make any guarantees about the safety of them/etc. The commit made by Claude on your branch also does not implement the NF permissions API correctly. It sets up a small number of the simpler permissions with the NF API, but completely ignores all of the other permissions that the NF permissions API is too barebones to handle.
Having some parts of a permissions check gated but others not is a significantly worse situation than not integrating with the NF permissions API at all. It leads to inconsistencies and false confidence, and is overall very confusing for the user as there's no direct indication as to what permission checks will and won't succeed.
electricsteve commentedon Sep 5, 2026
@me4502 They said in the NAP (NeoForge Annual Parley) that to fix issues, they will need to get a list of issues with the API, and that they would like you to contact them through discord to discuss what you'd want changed.
me4502 commentedon Sep 6, 2026
I've had a short discussion with them and need to write up an issue. The original discussions we had were with the team prior to the Forge/NeoForge split (although upon the split the general vibe we got was that they weren't up to re-assessing this issue). But it seems like things have changed enough by this point that they might be willing to reconsider fixing the API.