New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Closed group membership affects access levels on content (Trac #4525) #4525
Comments
trac user mrclay wrote on 42370733-07-01 I think the ability to turn a group effectively into a walled garden is useful functionality, but it should be controlled independently of membership policy. E.g. I could imagine it useful to have walled garden groups with open membership (the ability to see what's inside would be incentive to join the group). |
trac user mrclay wrote on 42378081-04-28 I've determined this is new behavior in 1.8, at least w/ regard to the pages mod. Up to 1.7, group_gatekeeper was called before the page owner was set. In 1.8, after. While this seems like fix w/r/t using group_gatekeeper correctly, I still contend it creates unintuitive and unwanted behavior. I propose we introduce a second metadata key "gated" with values "no"/"yes" answering the question "does group_gatekeeper seal off all access to group content from non-members?". If group_gatekeeper found isPublicMembership() to be false, it would pull the "gated" metadata. If missing, it would be set to "no" (return to 1.7 behavior), avoiding the need to touch each group during upgrade. I'm very motivated to get this in 1.9 because our community running 1.6 (we're working to upgrade ASAP) has a TON of closed groups with public content that would otherwise disappear upon upgrade. Any other 1.7 sites will face the same problems; the hard choice of opening groups or moving content to sister open groups. |
Title changed from |
trac user mrclay wrote on 42378849-11-14 For 1.9: #233 |
trac user mrclay wrote on 42465977-01-16 The PR above now uses the internal terminology "walled" instead of "gated", but [https://github.com/mrclay/Elgg-leaf/blob/1cf4d085ad50083bd8db7af59068d1a1bd22265d/mod/groups/languages/en.php#L35 in the UI] calls this "Accessibility of group content" with options "Unrestricted" and "Members Only" with brief explanations. It also handles messages appearing below the group description and displays a dynamic message when a content-level access setting may be overridden. Perhaps the concept should not be binary and instead support multiple content access models, with methods like |
trac user mrclay wrote on 42466165-12-21 #276 implements a "gatekeeper mode" on the group, and I think is a clearer to understand API, even if we never implement more than 2 gatekeeper strategies. All traces of "walled" have been removed. |
Milestone changed to |
beck24 wrote on 42552581-12-03 This has come up in my list of bugs for the university project - am I right in thinking there's no good way to solve this in 1.8 outside of core? |
trac user mrclay wrote on 42553213-02-16 Replying to beck24:
Not really. I think the least bad would be to hack in a custom plugin hook trigger at the top of group_gatekeeper. If you're on a git branch that shouldn't cause merge conflicts going forward. |
trac user mrclay wrote on 42586413-11-12 [https://docs.google.com/a/elgg.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlAO5SiXoBNGdExuTjgySk1xeDdubm04dmZHU01WQVE#gid=1 This spreadsheet] summarizes the changes I'm proposing in 1.9. If this looks right I'll move forward checking that my branch implements the spec and add unit tests. |
trac user sembrestels wrote on 42589384-05-14 Replying to mrclay: I don't understand |
trac user mrclay wrote on 42589512-03-14 Sorry, redirect to home page or group profile. |
beck24 wrote on 42630864-12-15 just checked out your spreadsheet - proposed 1.9 behavior LTGM |
trac user Coinor wrote on 42756083-02-18 Replying to mrclay:
Great job. So your PR won't make it into any 1.8.x release, will it? But why is it still not merged into master? Are there any release dates for v1.9? |
Note: awaiting approval of PR #528 |
Refs #4525: Normalize group content restriction across tools
Original ticket http://trac.elgg.org/ticket/4525 on 42370704-09-11 by trac user mrclay, assigned to trac user mrclay.
Elgg version: 1.8.4
I have a page inside a group, both with access PUBLIC, yet because the group is closed, the use of group_gatekeeper effectively makes the page accessible only to group members.
If this behavior is desirable, we need to add language that "closed" effectively walls off access to all content within (not only membership), and when group content is created in a closed group, the PUBLIC/LOGGED_IN access levels should be removed because they don't work at all.
IMO open/closed should not effectively override the access level of group content. I.e.
group_gatekeeper()
should not care about$group->isPublicMembership()
at all.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: