Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Incorrect example description for ApplicationCommandPermissionsManager.has() #10121

Closed
FieryFlames opened this issue Feb 9, 2024 · 4 comments · Fixed by #10123
Closed

Incorrect example description for ApplicationCommandPermissionsManager.has() #10121

FieryFlames opened this issue Feb 9, 2024 · 4 comments · Fixed by #10123

Comments

@FieryFlames
Copy link

FieryFlames commented Feb 9, 2024

Which application is this bug report for?

Documentation

Issue description

The example description for ApplicationCommandPermissionsManager.has() is incorrect

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Visit ApplicationCommandPermissionsManager.has()
  2. Look at the example code's description vs the documentation's description
  3. Look at the actual code and notice that the example description is wrong while the documentation description is right

Versions

  • Safari 17.3 (19617.2.4.11.8)
  • macOS 14.3

Issue priority

Low (slightly annoying)

@Jiralite
Copy link
Member

Jiralite commented Feb 9, 2024

Can you show what you are seeing?

@FieryFlames
Copy link
Author

Screenshot 2024-02-08 at 9 18 11 PM

@Jiralite
Copy link
Member

Jiralite commented Feb 9, 2024

You are seeing what I see, but you said the source code is different. They are the same:

image

Perhaps you misread?

@FieryFlames
Copy link
Author

The example is incorrect in saying that it checks if a user has permission to use a command, the function only checks if an override exists (and those can be true or false). It should be updated to be more like the description.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants