Node Gallery Access conflicts with Content Access module

Problem still exists in 6.x-2.0-alpha2

I tried Views, but I could not create a view that would not show galleries marked as private. I tried to set the permission to the "Access: view node gallery" in the Views basic settings, but it had no effect.

Private Galleries are removed from the overall list. Goody!

correct version

Are you sure that your settings are correct? I cannot confirm the comeback of this issue. My install kept an existing private Gallery private, made an existing Gallery private which was public beforehand and also allowed to create a new private Gallery.

Did you flushed your cache, rebuilt the permissions?

From my perspective this is still fixed.

To be sure go to admin/settings/performance, scroll down and "clear cached data". Drupal caches some stuff inevitably and clearing the cache has solved a lot of mysterious problems for me.

alpha 10 version is just a tag of the dev version June 24.

I have only taxonomy role installed which could be considered falling into this category. Might be worth a try to disable CA with its known history of troublemaking (as most access control modules have).

Since node_gallery_access implements it's own node_access rules, it should conflict if you use other content access module.

I mean it *should* conflict...
in node gallery, we don't set the "image"'s node access, but only the "gallery"'s node access, then all the image's access are inheritted from the gallery's access setting, this is very different from general node access rules which apply to per node, and that's why we need a custom node_access module for node_gallery but from integrating with other node_access modules such as content_access etc. I don't know other node_access modules very much, so i can't tell whether it can be fixed or not.

#18 - No, I do not believe it would be offensive to post in Content Access's issue queue if they have ideas. I am not familiar with other content access modifying modules myself, either. Please link to any issue thread you open there on this thread so we can follow.

The problem here has a workaround, and that is to set the content_access priority to a number less than zero. However, all the other access modules I have used support setting the priority on the module. Currently, node_gallery_access hardcodes the priority to zero. I have code that adds this feature, but my local copy of the module has a few fixes that aren't in CVS, and it's getting hard for me to make atomic patches. Specifically, this patch would affect the same files as this one.

Committers, is there something I can do to my code to get it accepted faster, or is it just that those with commit access don't check in daily?

If there's someone who wants to test this right away, let me know and I'll apply just the changes for this feature to the most recent release and get a patch generated.

@justintime, I sent you a contact on your site. Don't know if it's the same e-mail you use here...

another one.. should this be closed for cleanup.?
the last patch by Justintime has a module weight setting to solve a conflict with another module..

I haven't heard any activity here for almost a month..

Going to see if there is any push back by marking this fixed...
#480304: Node Gallery Access conflicts with Content Access module
has module weight setting that I believe takes care of this as is stated in #21
#612122: node_gallery_access doesn't let users with 'access protected contents' or 'edit protected contents' view password galleries

I don't think it is a good idea to mark issues as fixed unless the issue is truly fixed, as noted by the originator or a maintainer. Getting rid of issues just to clean up is not a good idea.

#21 is a workaround and the originator is asking for input from the maintainers. I don't read anything here that says the issue is fixed. In fact, #19 marks this as a bug report. I read this issue as being up to the maintainer to determine what he wants to do.

Actually, I think it should be marked fixed or duplicate - while I'm not the originator nor the maintainer, I wrote the code that fixes it. I hope that counts for something ;-)

#21 is a workaround, but #612122: node_gallery_access doesn't let users with 'access protected contents' or 'edit protected contents' view password galleries is a bunch of fixes, one of which allows weight to be assigned, thus fixing this issue. That code has been committed to CVS.

If it isn't FIXED, then I think it should be at least marked as a duplicate to #612122: node_gallery_access doesn't let users with 'access protected contents' or 'edit protected contents' view password galleries.

I'm going to leave it alone, as I don't like playing tug-o-war with bug statuses - kmonty, what do you think?

ok, we will leave this active and test everything. That is the reason for waking this up.

I am giving this a work out,
Can anyone give me some clue what is broke or possibly broke so I can try to duplicate
I am good at breaking things, but it would help to know what is questionable.
Should I get a bunch of content access modules installed at once or is there one that is really bad..?
anyway, i will be pounding on it and document anything that won't work as expected...

If this is actually fixed, then it should be closed.

Are you continuing to have issues or can we verify these modules play nicely now?

I haven't done a lot of testing yet, starting tonight on that mission.
I will be pounding on it over the next 2 days to see IF i can make it break.
You can close it, if you want and IF i find something at issue, I will make a detailed report.

I haven't found any conflicts or errors at this point.
Both access modules have a weight setting which should resolve any conflicts that could arise.
Keeping in mind:
the module(s) weight setting, roles, permissions, per node access control, content type settings(gallery and gallery image) and User access control with content_access.....
There seems to be an infinite number of combination's using content_access with node_gallery access.

my conclusion at this point would be to mark this as 'absolute answer not found'.

Marking this as fixed, there's code commited that should fix it, there are no updates from the originator, no one else can duplicate it, and NGA has become it's own module. If there is still a conflict, open a new issue in NGA's issue queue.