View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0007124New Feature Requests[All Projects] Generalpublic2017-06-18 20:56
ReporternichAssigned To 
PrioritynormalSeverityfeatureReproducibilityhave not tried
Status newResolutionopen 
Summary0007124: [Request] Don't count color codes in outputChatBox char-limit

A little suggestion: don't count colorcodes towards the character-limit of outputChatBox when colorCoded parameter is set to true.

Why? Because colorcodes don't effectively make the text longer.

TagsNo tags attached.

Users sponsoring this issue
Sponsors List Total Sponsorship = EUR 5

2012-06-19 21:13: SHC//Sniper (EUR 5)
Users sponsoring this issue (Total Sponsorship = EUR 5)


has duplicate 0008190 closed New issues HEX codes count as letters when outputing messages 



2012-06-19 21:14

reporter   ~~0016850

Last edited: 2012-06-19 21:15

Please fix that in association with the following report:


2012-06-19 21:17

reporter   ~~0016851

Why? Because colorcodes don't effectively make the text longer.
Yes they do.


2012-06-19 22:33

reporter   ~~0016852

Unless "colorCoded parameter is set to true."


2012-06-19 22:36

viewer   ~~0016853

Mind explaining me how does colorcode make the visible text longer when colorCoded parameter is set to true? The point of the character limit is to avoid too long chat messages, isn't it?


2012-06-19 22:40

reporter   ~~0016854

Mind explaining me how does colorcode make the visible text longer when colorCoded parameter is set to true?

I think you know what I'm getting at.


2012-06-19 22:46

viewer   ~~0016855

No, I'm not a clairvoyant. I'm still of the opinion that the character limit is there to prevent long chat-messages and not to limit the number of colorcodes used in a chat-message.


2012-06-19 22:47

reporter   ~~0016856

you are also not a developer so I'm not sure how you made that (wrong) assumption


2012-06-19 22:49

viewer   ~~0016857

And were you the developer who added the limit to claim otherwise?


2012-06-19 22:50

reporter   ~~0016858

no I'm the developer who looked at the source code.


2012-06-19 22:56

viewer   ~~0016859

Last edited: 2012-06-19 22:57

Ok Mr. Bigshot, then please do explain to me what was the reason you found for the limit in the source code?

MAX_CHATECHO_LENGTH would definitely refer to the lenght of the text that gets echoed/output, colorcodes don't. Echo refers to something tangible, colorcodes aren't "tangible" in any way.


2012-06-19 23:01

reporter   ~~0016860

no it wouldn't mr I think I know everything
is still
"#FF0000Hello" to the client
just because you see something doesn't mean that's all there is.
where else would those colour codes be stored than the text itself?


2012-06-19 23:08

viewer   ~~0016861

Last edited: 2012-06-19 23:09

Your whole statement is solely based upon your personal opinion, there's no solid proof of why it is as it is in the source code, which is a card you used to (try to) prove your credibility on the matter.

I'd rather wait for an answer from a developer who has a more constructive answer for me, your last one didn't still tell any reason for this. The fact is that this bug ( ) still needs a fix, whether it's in combined with my suggestion or not doesn't relly matter.


2014-11-30 14:17

administrator   ~~0022620

This seems like a fairly easy tweak (get the hexless text and use that size) - just waiting for this to go into acknowledged/acceptedfeatures so I can try and "submit a patch".


2014-11-30 15:05

reporter   ~~0022622

As I pointed out, the hex text is the one sent so:

a) you can't change the network code mid release to send both separately and you can't assume the server and client are both using the same version
b) I increased the limit of outputChatBox before 1.4 but we should have done this then:

if this is done then it'l introduce a scenario where people who use more than 96 characters will only be seen by people with newer clients which would need fixing.

I should also point out that MAX_CHAT_LENGTH is used more than MAX_CHATECHO_LENGTH client side which is why it looked simple.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change