My tries with this problem
Well, first off, i'm not an admin,but a programmer.But once i checked this problem.
The previous post is the right solution:remove the container from the container list.
If you do a search on the source code for the server, looking for where the containers are removed from the list, you'll find that they're called from the core, when a certain message is received.
If an action is taken in the client to close a gump, that message is sent.If the server asks the client to close the gump,the message is *not* sent.
That message looks like an ack from the client telling the server the gump has been closed in the client.
If you add a line in the core (sorry,dont have the core source, and cant find it in the web) so the server prints a line when the "gumpclosed message" is received,you can check it by yourself.(core recompilation needed)
Example of this is the runebook problem:
Using 2 runebooks, make 2 tests:
1) Open first.Close it.Open second.Close it.Add rune in the first.It works well.
2)Open first.Dont close it, but open second.Close the second.Add a rune on the first.Will tell you it's open.
Thats because in the first case, the client asks the server to close the gump.
In the second case, is the server who asks the client to close the first gump (first runebook), and the client does, but dont send back the "ack" message to the server.So it doesnt remove it from the gump list.
Looks like they decided that message was not important, and, in fact, maybe it's not.If the server decides to close a gump, doesnt need any message back from the client.
But RunUo relies on that message to come back from the client to actually remove the gump.
--
So, the fix for it is to remove the gump from the list if you know that the gump has to be removed from the server.This is, if you know that if there is an open runebook, you need to close it before open another, send the CloseGump message, *and* remove it from the list.
This would affect,at least, at all those gumps that were supposed to be "replaced" when opening a container of the same type.
The way to replicate the problem with the res gump, i was not able to tell, but the problem is the same.