LlMatchGroup

Template:Needs Translation/LSL/de Template:Needs Translation/LSL/es Template:Needs Translation/LSL/el Template:Needs Translation/LSL/fr Template:Needs Translation/LSL/he Template:Needs Translation/LSL/it Template:Needs Translation/LSL/ja Template:Needs Translation/LSL/ko Template:Needs Translation/LSL/nl Template:Needs Translation/LSL/hu Template:Needs Translation/LSL/no Template:Needs Translation/LSL/da Template:Needs Translation/LSL/sv Template:Needs Translation/LSL/tr Template:Needs Translation/LSL/pl Template:Needs Translation/LSL/pt Template:Needs Translation/LSL/ru Template:Needs Translation/LSL/th Template:Needs Translation/LSL/uk Template:Needs Translation/LSL/zh-Hans Template:Needs Translation/LSL/zh-Hant

/LSL

MatchGroup

llMatchGroup

	LSL Feature Request
	The described function does not exist. This article is a feature request.

Summary

1/2 Bugs

Function: integer llMatchGroup( key avatar, key group );

	Forced Delay
0	Energy

(Also suggested to be called llIsGroupActive or llCheckGroupActive).

This function is a request from several scripters to reach what llDetectedGroup and llSameGroup is not able to provide. It would not cause any security and/or privacy issues due the fact it will return a integer as boolean instead of any information about the group. Furthermore, this function will only check against an agent's current active group, something which can be readily discovered by most residents using the standard viewer even if the group is marked as hidden.
Returns an integer boolean; TRUE if the agent has group as active group, otherwise FALSE

• key	avatar	–	avatar UUID that is in the same region
• key	group	–	group UUID to check against avatar's current active group

Specification

• Still unknow.

Caveats

• Can still check the agent's active group even if it is hidden

Examples

<lsl>key group_key = "cd505f45-a33c-dcd5-eb7e-cad27847a4af"; //Key of some group key toucher; //Key of person who touches the object

default {

   touch_start(integer total_number)
   {
       toucher = llGetDetected(0);

       if (llMatchGroup(toucher, group_key) == TRUE) {  //It checks if the agent (avatar) has
                                               // the group of "group_key" as active group
           llSay(0,"You belong to the group secondlife:///app/group/" + (string)group_key + "/about");
       } else {
           llSay(0,"You don't belong to the group secondlife:///app/group/" + (string)group_key + "/about");
       }
   }

}</lsl>

Notes

Child Prims

It is possible for the group of a child prim to differ from that of the root prim. To build such an object it must first be unlinked, the groups set, and then relinked. Rezzing an object resets the group of the object to that of the group that the user currently has activated. Changing the group of an object changes the group for the entire object. This may only be an artifact or manifestation of VWR-5044. Please go vote if this feature is important to you. [Jira]

See Also

Functions

•	llDetectedGroup	–	Used in conjunction with detection events
•	llSameGroup

Deep Notes

Signature
//function integer llMatchGroup( key avatar, key group );

Comments

"A function, tentatively titled llMatchGroup(), which takes two parameters: an agent/object key and a group key, and returns a boolean result. (e.g. integer llMatchGroup(key target, key group); ) The function simply checks "target"'s active group against the key "group", returns a 1 if the two match and returns a 0 if they do not. For the purposes this is intended to cover it would only need to work for targets located within the same sim. (Though it would be nice if it could check targets 96m within adjacent sims, a la llGetObjectDetails().)

I believe this function would satisfy both needs for the most part; it would allow scripters to set up multi-group authorization systems, but would not allow them to potentially breach resident privacy by in essence "fishing" for group information as implementing SVC-1612 would allow. Any scripts using it would have to know the key of the group in advance to get any meaningful information out of this.

It should also be noted that this functionality is strongly desired, to the point where designers use rather complex methods to accomplish this despite the heavy overhead required. I've seen a few security/etc. setups where the system relied on multiple objects set to different groups, each using llSameGroup() within intercommunicating scripts in order to allow multiple-group access checking. Implementing this would allow developers to use self-contained scripts to accomplish the same thing."

"IF this idea is implemented, I'd much rather see the function called llIsGroupActive or llCheckGroupActive as llMatchGroup is too vague."

- Text extracted from Jira