Issue status update for http://drupal.org/node/14149 Post a follow up: http://drupal.org/project/comments/add/14149 Project: Drupal Version: cvs Component: profile.module Category: feature requests Priority: normal Assigned to: ejort Reported by: sushi76 Updated by: drumm -Status: patch (code needs review) +Status: patch (code needs work) There needs to be an upgrade path so existing private and public settings are set up ad permissions when people upgrade. Code which becomes unused, such as the old constant definition, should simply be deleted. In scanning through the comments it looks like profiles as nodes came up. This is a bad idea at this point because a lot of work is actively being done on the node system by John with Content Creation Kit. It would be somewhat like building without a solid foundation, or simply making CCK work harder than necessary. I think this would potentially introduce other issues. Any discussion of profiles as nodes should be moved off of this issue so this patch, which appears to not need it can go through. drumm Previous comments: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thu, 09 Dec 2004 18:38:09 +0000 : sushi76 Currently there are only these three Options Private field, content only available to privileged users. (Admin users) Public field, content shown on profile page but not used on member list pages. (Everyone, but not in the member list) Public field, content shown on profile page and on member list pages. (Everyone, everywhere) It should be possible to set the visibilty of profile fields by user roles. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:40:34 +0000 : tulula I agree! If visibility is set by roles OR if the option is left up to the user to display their info at their discretion vs Admin at level of setting up profile fields. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mon, 06 Jun 2005 05:03:27 +0000 : ejort I agree that it should be possible to set visibility per role. There is profile data on my site that I want my organisation's committee members to see, but nobody else, there's information that I want only authenticated users to see, but not anonymous users etc. More than that, I think we should be able to set field editability by role also. There is data on my site that only certain people should be able to edit. If we get to this point then this would be a superset of the functionality discussed in the PROFILE_HIDDEN updates [1] thread, but would be much more flexible. [1] http://drupal.org/node/21219 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 10 Jun 2005 08:07:49 +0000 : ejort Attachment: http://drupal.org/files/issues/profile.module.role_based_field_permissions.p... (12.97 KB) Hi, Here's a patch which implements role based edit / access permissions for profile fields. It allows you to give permissions to each role (and for each field) to: * access a field (for all accounts) * access a field for your own account * edit a field for your account Users with permission 'administer users' can access / edit all fields, and users must have enough permission to edit/access a profile for these extra permissions to come into effect. I believe this allows for more flexibility than the existing profile.module method of PROFILE_PRIVATE and in HEAD PROFILE_HIDDEN. You can eg: * hide some fields from anonymous users, while allowing other roles to still view that info * have fields viewable by only the admin and user who owns the account (like PROFILE_PRIVATE * have fields viewable by some roles, but only editable by the admin * have fields hidden from all except the admin, and editable only by the admin * it will make you more attractive to the opposite sex etc. I'm developing this because I need it for one of my sites, hence, unfortunately this patch is against the 4.6 profile.module. If people think this is a valuable feature for HEAD I can roll a patch against that. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:13:37 +0000 : Bèr Kessels I am not too sure about this. A typical profile contains between five and 10 fields, but twenty fields is not unheard of. This patch will flood the permissions screen unnneccesary. I would opt for the hard way: An advanced profile module, or CRM module, or so. hat module could implemen,t all sorts of advanced levelled permissions. In order to maintain a high level of usability in core, we should try to minimize options and checkboxes. I know from flexinode, which adds similar dynamic permissions, that the interface for permissions is really not up to this big amount of permissions. I really think such things should not be in core. Buty that all said, it /is/ a handy feature :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:53:27 +0000 : ejort Yes, unfortunately it can add a large number of permissions to the permissions page. I did consider trying to place the permission selections on each fields edit page instead (similar to the visibility settings), but as a certain eminent author recently wrote* [2]: "please use *only* the permissions page to set permissions, and do not create new permissions-alike settings in any configuration pages " :-) I think that the PROFILE_PRIVATE and PROFILE_HIDDEN (and the PROFILE_PUBLIC_*) settings are currently doing just that, implementing an alternate permissions system which addresses a few use cases, but is ultimately not particularly flexible. Is there any chance that the permissions sections can benefit from some collapsible goodness to alleviate the flooding? I think it's a shame to reduce the systems flexibility because it may create 'too many' permissions settings, especially as it is generally a set once and forget proposition. Perhaps we should look at the underlying UI problem? *That would be Bér :-) [2] http://drupal.org/node/22565#comment-32248 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:27:15 +0000 : Bèr Kessels Ejort, I know i wrote that. However, this is a little bit different. am not saying you should make a new system for changing the apperance of profile fields. I am only saying that having per-profile-field permissions is: * way OTT for the big mayority of users * extremely cluttering for the permission page (which, essetially is a problem in that interface, not in your "feature") ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:22:41 +0000 : ejort I don't agree that this is extremely off topic for most users. A large number of people using drupal in any business setting will likely find the extra flexibility invaluable (and the use cases popping up in discussions for regarding PROFILE_HIDDEN show that the current approach doesn't cover enough of the possibilities). I've worked on multiple jobs where I had to create contact lists and employee profiles where basic information was accessible to the public (name, work email, profile text), certain details (direct phone numbers) were only visible to internal company employees, other data (mobile phone numbers) were visible only to team leaders, other data (next of kin contact details) were only visible to an admin, and the user wasn't allowed to edit certain items (such as the public profile text). I've had similar needs come up across several jobs, but then again I wrote the patch so of course I needed it! :-) I also believe that the permissions page problem isn't too large an issue. The permissions are created in response to the admin creating profile fields (3 per field, 'access', 'access own', 'edit'), so the page has no extra permissions by default. This also isn't an interface that is accessed on a daily basis, and there is a good visual separation of the sections so it is easy to skim past the longer profile section if that's not what you're interested in. Of course, this is all just my opinion, and I'm a biased observer :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 14 Jun 2005 15:37:19 +0000 : Bèr Kessels I know its a handy feature, that will be used in some cases. But then it should nbe in an advanced-profile.module. Not in core. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:12:35 +0000 : judah I would have to disagree with you ber on this one. I have posted some comments on the Hidden Profile update mentioned above. The permission system *should* be apart of core. These shouldn't be broken out into another advanced module. There *shouldn't* be a node_privacy_by_role. This is unheard of in other systems. I have worked on many other cms solutions and permissions is always a part of the design. Should we plaster them on every feature? No. But we should not so easily dismiss this issue. Node privacy by role and field privacy by role should be considered more closely as a core function rather than where it is now. IMHO. Having said that I do understand the need to break things or branch things too. So it is up to you designers to consider this. Assuming this patch gets approved I would suggest you make the role assignment options available on the profile edit page if it's not already. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:09:23 +0000 : killes@www.drop.org judah: Drupal has the benefit that we can use any node access scheme we like by using another module. @all: I think the best thing would eb to make profiles nodes and wait for cck for field based permissions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 15 Jun 2005 11:19:20 +0000 : Bèr Kessels I think an interim solution would be to: * make profiles nodes * use Flexinode if one wished for profiles . otherwise use a dediceated node for this * add per field permissions to flexinode. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:14:07 +0000 : Boris Mann I think that profile does indeed need to be re-vamped at some point, and making it a node is likely the right way to go -- then we can benefit from all the field-level work that is going on as we head towards CCK. This is a good interim patch, and should likely be applied to HEAD until someone comes up with the one true profile node -- following our motto to commit things a little earlier so that they can get some testing and use, rather than waiting forever. I know we have a need for it right now as well, and so will help keep this up to date. The one issue is the UI for permissions. It should probably be a separate screen, rather than access control. I would put it directly in the per-field edit screen (e.g. admin/setting/profile/edit/1) or be a permission tab (e.g. admin/setting/profile/permissions). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 15 Jun 2005 17:22:49 +0000 : fago the profile node sounds good. i think it's also good to have the possibility to define profile fields for different roles only, so that every role has its own profile. i've done recently a site, where i needed very extended profiles - so i wrote a profile.module based on the drupal profile.module which does this and a lot of other customized stuff.. i also introduced profile-fields, which can be edited only by user with "administer users", as mentioned here. i think, you might run into same problem i did: i already mentioned this issue [3] i'm using this patch, i posted there, on this site. otherwise a user could just inject data, with the same name as admin-only-field, in the user-data field, which will be loaded in the user object by user_load(). further profile_load_profile won't overwrite the value.. [3] http://drupal.org/node/21515 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:44:15 +0000 : dmclark sorry if this is a nOOb question, but I try to apply the patch and get: patch: **** malformed patch at line 9: /**