refers to prim OWNERS. A new option set, Creators_, is added to allow
selection by script creator. For existing installs, this means no functional
change. The warning from my prior commit doesn't apply anymore.
would be the IDs of the prim owners in whose prims these functions would
run. This changes it so the UUID is the SCRIPT CREATOR instead. Further,
osfunctions limited by uuid will not run if the creator and owner differ
and the owner has mod rights on the script.
There is still a danger in passing moodifiable scripts to others, as they
can insert a harmful function, then remove the mod rights to make it runnable.
As before, care needs to be taken, but where it was modable prims that were
the risk before, modable scripts are the weak spot now.
In cases where prim owner == script creator == script owner, nothing will
change.
This is going to be the right behaviour in all cases, I should think.
This means that avatars in region when an oar is loaded do not lose their attachments
The base test class now tries to connect to DB, ignores all tests in the
class if unable to.
Also m_log changed to instance field (which in this case shouldn't cause
any problems), to avoid having to define it separately in each derived
class. Here I touched things that I don't understand well (using log4net),
so please review this commit.
There was a whole bunch of these SQL files, all empty and apparently
unused. Removing them is just a clean-up, if anybody has a reason for these
files to be there, feel free to revert.
Besides, AssetData is slightly optimized to StoreAsset in one request
("IF EXISTS() UPDATE ... ELSE INSERT ...")
The main change in the MS SQL Inventory implem. is that it now return
empty list (or whatever) when called with UUID.Zero, which is consistent
with how the code for other DBs work.
I did no changes at all in XInventory, as there is no test set for them.
ok, so the estate stores now want their own migration files, but as it
happened the SQL definition were inside the Region migrations.
It seems better/cleaner to keep each 'store' separately updatable.
WARNING: any editing in the middle of the migration scripts (as opposite
to just appending to them) has the potential of messing up updates of
existing databases. As far as I can see, this one is (probably) safe,
the worst that could happen is the EstateStore migration silently fail
if the estate the tables are already there.
The tests have been modified to work under NUnit 2.4.6
(the one currently used in the project).
They will also work with NUnit 2.5+ as is, but will look better
if you #define NUNIT25 for them.
Melanie