Does it work with Content Taxonomy ?

Basically, the module needs some additional code to manipulate the content taxonomy form item. I don't use that module, but would be glad to review patches implementing the feature.

I am experiencing the same problem - using Content Taxonomy, the permissions I just set up do nothing. Everyone can still select all of the terms.

Can anyone please help out with this???

This really is a new feature, not a bug in the existing design.

We have the same problem: we installed both the Content Taxonomy module and also Taxonomy Term Permissions, both the latest release versions. If a taxonomy vocabulary V1 has terms set with permissions, and then if a Content Taxonomy field related to V1 is created in a content type, the permission settings have no effect -- all users/roles see all terms in V1. I tried changing the weights of the modules to see if that could fix the problem, but it did not.

If we use ONLY Taxonomy Term Permissions, then the users/roles who have been given permission do see the terms, other users/roles do not; so it works correctly. But that is not what we want because we want to use the additional capability of Content Taxonomy for that taxonomy vocabulary.

What can I do to get the two to work together as we need?

Thanks!

Jerry

+ 1 to this request - i'm using content taxonomy and it would be great to have term permissions available.

I'm having this same problem as well. Has anyone found a solution for this? If not I'll try to take a look at it next week, but don't want to redo it if someone else has found something that works.

Thanks!

+ 1 to this request - i'm using content taxonomy and it would be great to have term permissions available.

I need content taxonomy and editablefields support.

The attached patch is how I achieved this.

I hope it helps.

Thanks for the patch.

• Minor typos with "Content Taxonmy"
• Same with "the user cant"
• Can we have an @param in the function comment for term_permission_get_field_names_by_type() and _term_permissions_access_message()?
• For the access denied message, I'm not sure what the point of displaying the current field value is? If the field is hidden from view, why does a user need to know it's value?

@deviantintegral
The reason for showing the value is because the user can normally view the field and can sometimes edit the field depending on the term permissions. This way the user knows the current work flow state and the reason why they can't set or even see the field.

Has anyone had success with this patch? I tried applying it but it doesn't seem to work. Terms from content taxonomy fields that are set to only one role are still visible by all roles.

Any help is much appreciated.

Will this patch be commited or will this function be included in future releases?

I can confirm that this is a problem that is not fixed in the latest dev release and this patch does not seem to help. I tried applying normally, but that failed. I tried manually making the changes, but even after uninstalling and enabling again, it doesn't look like it made any change whatsoever. Bummer.