Add helper methods for vanilla-style command feedback

[Strokkur424]

Supersedes #13058
Closes #12579

Changes over the original PR by jmp:

• Updated to latest commit on main
• Renamed sendSystemMessage to sendReply
• Updated the sendSuccess Javadoc to replace deprecated GameRule mentions with GameRules
• Introduced sendRichReply, sendRichSuccess, and sendRichFailure overloads, which accept MiniMessage and TagResolvers

[Doc94]

well this comes from the base PR but not sure about ignore the default style used in vanilla, but its more a opinion... most of people who use this wanna custom messages so...

[Strokkur424]

We could theoretically just add an overload that does apply the style too. Maybe sendFailureStyled? Alternatively, could be a method parameter. Idk, whatever you think is best?

[Warriorrrr]

didn't really give much time for jmp to look at your review there before opening your own PR there

I think sendSystemMessage would be a nicer name than sendReply or the old sendToTarget & the minimessage methods don't really seem necessary

[masmc05]

the minimessage methods don't really seem necessary

Minimessage methods are quite useful, including current ones on CommandSender, especially on just feedback as messages are often simple and defined in place in command handling

[Strokkur424]

didn't really give much time for jmp to look at your review there before opening your own PR there

Just for your and anyone else's information, jmp did tell me I may open a PR to supersede his. I wouldn't have done it otherwise 😅

[Strokkur424]

I think sendSystemMessage would be a nicer name than sendReply or the old sendToTarget & the minimessage methods don't really seem necessary

I can change it to sendSystemMessage again, sure, I thought maybe something shorter might be nice. Do you have any opinion on just calling it sendMessage directly, or is that too generic and may cause confusion between ctx.getSource().sendMessage() and ctx.getSource().getSender().sendMessage()?

The MiniMessage methods mirror the style of the ones on CommandSender, which I have found quite convenient. If you really think they should not be here, I can remove them again, but thought it might be a nice utility addition.

[Doc94]

Maybe we can extend a little this? (where this is mentioned)

maybe can be to much info but the logic for admins and console... its like

• Admins
  • The gamerule for command feedback
  • minecraft.admin.command_feedback permission (or op)
• Console
  • The gamerule for log admin commands
  • The silentCommandBlocks when source its not a comand block

but maybe its to much info for this... and maybe can be just a mention in the docs rather than here (?

[Strokkur424]

I've spent some time thinking about how one could properly word this, and I have come to the evaluation that I think the current paragraph for this is already good enough. Generally, I think it's logical that command feedback is only sent for players with the relevant permission (the docs have that permission documented, albeit the description is outdated).

[Doc94]

didn't really give much time for jmp to look at your review there before opening your own PR there

I think sendSystemMessage would be a nicer name than sendReply or the old sendToTarget & the minimessage methods don't really seem necessary

not sure about the SystemMessage term in methods... all the use of that are internally and exposed with simple names like sendRawMessage, etc.

For the MM i feel dont hurt have... we already has sendRichMessage