Dear Tony,

In data Thursday 26 February 2009, [email protected] scribacchiaste dette 
parole:
>    This is not really a possible goal. Our python websubmissions use
> egroups and email lists to restrict actions - and may use any arbitrary
> mixture within a submission as a function of the category. Modification
> restrictions are even more complicated - in general depend on the actual
> metadata of a given record as well as category, email and egroups. Even
> more than that, different fields are available depedending on who the
> user is - this allows powerusers to manage documents of normal users..

the request came from a user and this mail confirmed that I just implemented 
the task. 

WebSubmit submissions and actions in Invenio can be protected via the 
WebAccess "submit" action with doctype/act parameters. If an Invenio sys admin 
decide to exploit WebAcess to protect WebSubmit the protection will work out 
of the box. What was missing (which I implemented on the user's request) was 
just to display in the submission tree only the submissions for which the user 
is authorized according to WebAccess. 

At CERN CDS, as you say, we're not using WebAccess to protect single 
submission, so the CDS user will not be impacted at all by this feature. At 
CERN all the users will be able to see all the submissions link in the 
<http://cdsweb.cern.ch/submit> page. 

On the contrary, on an any other Invenio site, where the admin has decided to 
use WebAccess to protect submission, a user will see in the above-mentioned 
tree only the submission for which he has any right (regardless of the 
corresponding act).

> I disagree with the notion that a websubmit tree (of all the things a
> user could do) is even very useful.

I guess here there's been a misunderstanding. The "tree" mentioned by the user 
is simply the hierarchy of existing submissions (i.e. the Submit page). So a 
WebAccess-enabled WebSubmit configuration, will present the user a pruned tree 
sporting only the submissions the user is authorized to access.

To me this seemed reasonable and quick to implement... (the implementation 
consisted of ~10 lines of code)

> Sorry to be so negative..

No problem :-) You're always welcome!

Best regards,
        Sam

Ps, indeed the Savannah Task #8888 that I just closed contained infact two 
features-request. I've implemented the first one. The second one on the other 
hand seemed a bit too complex for the time being. It might be worth opening a 
new task with just this second feature request. (To enable/disable a whole 
submission.)
-- 
Samuele Kaplun ** CERN Document Server ** <http://cds.cern.ch/>

Reply via email to