Slash Command Permissions

[maanex]

Description

Allow slash commands to be only executed when a user has specific permissions in the channel they're using the command in. These permissions can be set individually for each slash command, allowing moderator only slash commands for instance.

Why This is Needed

While it is possible to check permissions after a user has sent a command and reply with a "you don't have the permission to execute this command" type of text, having unusable commands hidden in the ui entirely would resolve in both, a better user experience, and less server side (bot, not discord) code.

Example use cases where this would be useful:

• a /warn command that kicks users with 3 warnings should only be executable by users with the "kick members" permission
• a /bulkdelete command to delete multiple messages at once should only be executable by users with the "manage messages" permission

Alternatives Considered

Alternative would be to manually check the permissions on each slash command execution. This works currently but has two major downsides:

• the command is still visible in the user interface and auto-completes without letting the user know they can't use the command
• extra server side code for permission checks is required (and possibly even having a bot in the same guild)

Additional Details

Taking the example JSON object from the documentation, a simple "permission" attribute with a bitfield as the minimum required permissions would be how I imagine to set these permission requirements:

json = {
    "name": "blep",
    "description": "Send a random adorable animal photo",
    "permission": 0b10000000000110, // Permission bits as seen everywhere else in the app. The user would have to have all of those permissions in order to use the command.
    "options": [
        {
            "name": "animal",
            "description": "The type of animal",
            "type": 3,
            "required": true,
            "choices": [
                {
                    "name": "Dog",
                    "value": "animal_dog"
                }
            ]
        },
    ]
}

Additional/custom permission checks (like having a specific role) would still need manual permission checks and "no permission" responses.

[iSaluki]

I feel that something like this would be a necessary feature for slash commands to properly get used by the community. At the very least, I'd expect to be able to create moderator or admin only commands, but being able to bind commands to individual permission(s) would be a much fuller solution.

[msciotti]

We will support a permission system for Slash Commands. After talking to developers and some community folks, it seems like being able to set permissions on roles/users is more beneficial for end-users than defining specific permissions on commands. For example, two roles in your server may both have Manage Message, but you only want one of them to be able to use a /delete command.

Our current thinking is:

• We will support "overrides" for commands, like we do in channels
• Overrides are valid for guild and global commands
• Overrides will be valid for a user or a role
• If you do not have permission to use a command, we will remove it from your command explorer list (when you type /)
• You can effectively disable a certain command within a guild by denying @everyone the permission to use that command

This approach does not solve the case for some developers--"I only want people with Manage Server to see this command"--but creating it like our existing permission overrides is more in line with how servers define their permission structure, and has the added benefit of allowing "Only this user can use an admin command in the bot".

[muddyfish]

This approach does not solve the case for some developers--"I only want people with Manage Server to see this command"--but creating it like our existing permission overrides is more in line with how servers define their permission structure, and has the added benefit of allowing "Only this user can use an admin command in the bot".

Will we be able to define 'sensible defaults' for commands? Say we have a 'nuke entire server' command, it would be pretty bad if anyone could use it. The same is true for less extreme examples such as a 'upload emoji' command

[MinnDevelopment]

So you expect users to setup the permissions for every command of a bot? What if the bot adds a new ban command and all servers now have that command available to all users in the server?

[SinisterRectus]

If you do not have permission to use a command...

Will these overrides use a whitelist/allowlist or blacklist/denylist mechanism?

In other words, what is the default behavior if no overrides are set?

[advaith1]

Personally, I think it's weird to not support setting it by Discord permissions; I assume most bots' checks are by Discord permissions (for example, checking Kick Members for a /kick command). While user/role overrides would be useful, it doesn't fix the main issue imo.