Visible a must for editable to work?
edde42 - April 24, 2009 - 17:15
| Project: | Workflow Fields |
| Version: | 6.x-1.1 |
| Component: | User interface |
| Category: | support request |
| Priority: | normal |
| Assigned: | kratib |
| Status: | active |
Jump to:
Description
I have a few fields that should not be visible in view (depending on author/role), but editable. However if I only tick the editable for the author it does not show up in the form. Only way is to also tick the visible.
Is this really how it is supposed to work?
Using Workflow Access it was possible to make it work like this.
#1
Yes that's how it's supposed to work. The rationale is that you can't edit what is not visible.
#2
But that contradicts how the workflow access functions?
Is there any other way I can have a field available for only editing for author or certain roles but not viewable?
#3
You mean the person who edits the field cannot view it? What's a scenario for that?
#4
Ah, I think you misunderstood me. If you look at the default workflow access it works so you can set what is in the view and what is in edit.
The way I have used it is to set up so for certain field, mainly using the a user Content Taxonomy module to let users suggest new terms to a taxonomy vocabulary. Then a content admin looks at the form and will be able to add those new terms to the taxonomy.
Thus, I want the author to be able to add those suggestions in the form, but I want the view of the form to be the one that everyone else sees.
With the Workflow Access that is how it works, I can define which field that are viewed in the view and which fields that are viewed in edit.
I think being able to do so is beneficial as it allows me to do the above, have fields that only lives in edit that are useful for content admins but are never visible for the general public.
#5
Thanks for explaining, I understand now. I'll see how it can be done.
#6
Subscribing - I'd be interested in this too