Hi Rik,
Now running current Dev of Revisioning and Module Grants, and cant say if i saw this before, so it may have crept in.
God, User1, and Admins with edit revisions, publish revisions, unpublish current revision
After creating a new node, it is being placed into moderation, when I would have expected immediate publication, especially as once saved it shows the option to publish.
John
Comments
Comment #1
rdeboerHi John,
This is by design. Admin users are NOT exempt from moderation.
This allows them, for instance, to use the Compare function and double-check the changes before publishing.
However when they edit a piece of content they can untick the "Create new revision" and/or "New revision in moderation" boxes to bypass the process.
Rik
Comment #2
Anonymous (not verified) commentedHi Rik
Would it be possible to provide a configuration option for this? I feel it should be at least a selectable option, as it adds 2 extra steps to the process.
In my own case we have 5 users in total at present. I as user 1 create most of the information, if i make a mistake, it is unlikely anyone would even know, especially as the moment it goes to moderation I will immediately make the next 2 clicks to get it published. So sending to moderation, doesn't add a safety net of a Moderator, the only way that could happen is to take away publication rights, which opens a larger can or worms :)
Basically unless having the cofiguration this way if to enable another module to perform in a certain manner, it really achieves nothing
In Revision Moderation If you had Publish Rights to the content you are creating, it would immediately go to published status
regards
John
Comment #3
rdeboerHi John,
If the system unconditionally auto-publishes upon saving (for those who have publication rights), then the user (i.e. moderator or admin) won't be able to perform intermediate saves during the course of the day (or even days?), without the public seeing these unfinished drafts.
There is an element of David's point #465890: If node is pending, make a new revision be the current one? in this.
Therefore, if I'm going to introduce an auto-publish option for roles with the "publish revisions" permission, and I think I might, then it will be one that can be switched off.
Rik
Comment #4
Anonymous (not verified) commentedHi Rik,
You just hit on a concept for revisioning that I had not considered, and that is using it for "Drafts", possibly it didnt come to mind as I have been looking at the module Save As Draft, and considered Revisioning a different function. Also I had only considered Save as Draft as a prior to publication function, and not for revisions. But now thinking on it, the function could sit in the process somewhere, though i would say NOT as pending, it needs its own identification. Draft, otherwise if it is sitting in the pending file, it would also be in a Moderators Pending file, and they may moderate/publish it ? I may have missed something though, so please enlighten me
John
Comment #5
rdeboerChecked in (development snapshot 25-May or later).
It's on by default, go to Administer>>Site configuration for a brief explanation and to switch it off, if desired.
Notr that auto-publication for moderators only occurs when the content is either
a) an initial draft, or
b) a pending revision
The way it works at the moment, If the moderator edits a node for which no pending revisions exist (for instance when editing an unpublished, archived revision), then the new revision is NOT instantly published.
I'm not sure if this is a good thing. Maybe with the option switched on, anything the moderator saves should be published immediately. Or maybe only archived revisions should be exempt from publication, i.e any initial draft and any published node would progress to the new revision....
Then again, maybe it should only be the inital draft... Otherwise the moderator can't save their edits and throw it back to the author, without the rejected revision going live for a short time.
Oh I don't know....
Comment #6
Anonymous (not verified) commentedHi Rik
I will check it out later today when its available, but it does sound as though it will work.
The problem we have is that their are many organisations out their with various structures. Many have highly organised structures, developed through experience over umpteeen years, and requirements to meet regulations/standards, which tend to send you in one direction, and then their are the rest, where it has come from necessity, and thrown together one piece at a time, to form a haphazzard mess, which probably need a good overhaul, maybe Revisioning will provide that impetus fo rthem to fix things :)
John
Comment #7
Anonymous (not verified) commentedHi Rik,
Just downloaded the latest version, auto-publish works fine. However the block has now dissapeared :)
John
Comment #8
Anonymous (not verified) commentedHi Rik
The cause of the block dissapearing is due to
its doesnt like the 'vid ASC'
removing returns the block to visible
Comment #9
Anonymous (not verified) commentedHi Rik
Thought i would investigate further and found this reference on the web
So thought to try Timestamp, and again the block dissapears,
Comment #10
rdeboerHi John,
You found a reference on the web of the function I wrote specifically for Revisioning? Cool!
Did you upgrade both the development snapshot of Module Grants and that of Revisioning?
That might do the trick -- or I have made a mistake... It was getting late and I was in a hurry -- will look at it first thing tomorrow...
Rik
Comment #11
Anonymous (not verified) commentedHi Rik
good point forgot Module Grants , will try that
John
Comment #12
Anonymous (not verified) commentedThat fixed it:)
Comment #13
Anonymous (not verified) commentedThis does bring us back to teh old chesnut of displaying nodes of content types not needing needing moderation. My top 5 are now unpublished nodes from last year which i use as reference :) but thtas another story :)
John
Comment #14
rdeboerSetting issue to fixed (in development for testing by community).
Re #4: What is the difference between a "draft" and a "pending revision"?
I have created a new issue for this.
Re #13: Should "pending revisions" include content types not needing moderation?
I have created a new thread for this also.