Creating a roll to approve moderated revisions.
| Project: | Revision Moderation |
| Version: | 5.x-1.x-dev |
| Component: | Code |
| Category: | feature request |
| Priority: | normal |
| Assigned: | Unassigned |
| Status: | won't fix |
Jump to:
Here's a patch for it. For now it disables access to the settings menu, hopefully to prevent a false sense of functionality, although to be honest, as of Feb15, 2006 8:28 central time I still can't even get the menu (entry) to work that was implemented...
This creates a new permission that will allow the user to bypass the moderation queue. The PROBLEM is that right now the admin is automatically given the permission so if you want your admin to NOT have this feature (as in you want the admin's changes to go into revision) then you SHOULD NOT APPLY THIS PATCH. To be honest, I can't think of a better way of doing this to bypass this problem...
I don't know if this is something that webchick or others want integrated but I thought the patch at least would provide a working point for those that want this type of functionality.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| perm.jimmygoon_0.patch | 1.7 KB |
#1
Come to think it, it could just be a combination of the two...
- This patch (most of it at least): to add the new role and then
- some more of the original bits to allow for an override to exempt the admin if you want...
thoughts?
#2
Hm?
Sorry, but I don't get the point of this patch? It seems to comment out the settings menu and then define a permission that is never checked anywhere?
If the settings menu is not showing up, then you need to clear your menu cache. Hitting "Save configuration" at admin/build/modules should do it, otherwise DELETE FROM cache_menu; will do it.
I lean against having a separate permission for this, and tying it instead to 'administer nodes' privileges (which is what the module does now), since people with those privileges can already do anything they want anyway.
#3
Ok, I read too fast.. it is checked.
But can you further explain your use case and why the existing settings page doesn't solve your problem?
#4
In retrospect, I have no idea... never mind me and my silly patches...
#5
LOL ok. :)