Not a bug but design decision, mission config has priority as it is looked up first, if found all other config look ups are skipped

But that doesnt make sense as a design - mods are uploaded by the server admin and as such to be considered "secure".

There is no pointing being forced to redefine all functions/commands whitelisted in mods again in every mission that uses CfgRemoteExec whitelisting.

This is super mod use unfriendly "design".

What is your suggestion, considering backward compatibility?

if the current state is to remain the default, I can only see this:

description.ext

class CfgRemoteExec
{
	class Functions
	{
		inheritFromMods = 1;//0 is default and false - 1/true will expand this description.ext definition with classes from CfgRemoteExec/Functions defined by config.cpp of mods, but only if the given class is not defined in the description.ext /inside this class Functions already
	};
	class Commands
	{
		inheritFromMods = 1;
	};
};

in regards to allowedTargets and jip within Functions/Commands class definitions - one could allow a combination of the definitions from description.ext and mod configs, but seems unnecessary complexity to me.
imo if a Functions/Commands class definitions is set in the description.ext, it should just ignore it from mods completely.

so

description.ext

class CfgRemoteExec
{
	class Functions
	{
		inheritFromMods = 1;
		class Test {};
	};
	class Commands
	{
		inheritFromMods = 1;
		class say3d {};
	};
};

config.cpp

class CfgRemoteExec
{
	class Functions
	{
		class Test {...};//gets ignored
	};
	class Commands
	{
		class say3d {...};//gets ignored
	};
};

Revision: 150283 added "as" to "import"

import CfgRemoteExec as CfgRemoteExecMod;
 
class CfgRemoteExec : CfgRemoteExecMod
{
    class Server : Server
    {
        class Functions : Functions
        {
            jip = 0;
            class BIS_fnc_effectKilledSecondaries
            { 
                allowedTargets = 0;
                jip = 0; 
            };
        };
    };
};

@BIS_fnc_KK

1. this is not yet in 2.12, correct?

2. confused about the class server : server part - where is this coming from? or do you need to add this new sublayer to your mod CfgRemoteExec as well? (aka no backwards compatibility)

please advise 🙏

class CfgRemoteExec
{
	class Functions
	{
		mode = 2;
		jip = 1;

		class BIS_fnc_someFunction
		{
			allowedTargets = 0;
			jip = 0;
		};
	};

	class Commands
	{
		mode = 1;

		class setDir
		{
			allowedTargets = 2;
			jip = 0;
		};
	};
};

You want to overwrite cfgremoteexec or extend it? If you wan tto extend then you have to inherit everything. Dunno which version, look through dev log

2.14

Thanks!

Is that class server an undocumented feature?

I guess it is obsolete, but dont take my word for it https://community.bistudio.com/wiki?title=Arma_3:_CfgRemoteExec&diff=138136&oldid=138110

Anyway, this is irrelevant to this ticket, there is default config in the game and it has class Server. If you want to inherit from it this is what you do.

Alright will test with this setup as this is how people defined CfgRemoteExec in config.cpps:

import CfgRemoteExec as CfgRemoteExecMod;

class CfgRemoteExec: CfgRemoteExecMod
{
	class Functions: Functions
	{
		jip = 0;
		class BIS_fnc_effectKilledSecondaries
		{
			allowedTargets = 0;
			jip = 0;
		};
	};
};

as https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3:_CfgRemoteExec#Default_Config states

The default CfgRemoteExec in the game's main config uses an outdated format and is left for backward compatibility only (it was used directly by BIS_fnc_MP). The Client and Server classes are obsolete now. The new Remote Execution Framework ignores it (by default, all functions and commands are allowed).

My bad missed that when i searched the BIKI page before.