Hi, Thanks Jerome for the insight, i'll explore the options you have suggested, beginning with the restricted collections approach.
Thanks. On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Jerome Caffaro <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear Allan, > > On 01/03/2013 08:43 AM, Allan Oware wrote: > > I'm attempting to create a custom approval workflow which requires the > > SBI action of a document type to insert a record into the database but > > should not index it (record shouldnt appear in collection). > > The best way to achieve this is to have the record inserted into a > restricted collection. In this way only the authorized users (for eg. > admins/validators only) could search/view the record. This can be > done by modifying the metadata created for the record in the SBI > workflow in order to be matched by such a restricted collection. > > Another action (for eg. "APP") would then be granted to the validators > in order to modify the collection metadata of the record (and match a > public collection this time) such that the record would be "moved" > automatically to the adequate public collection (after the record is > indexed by BibIndex, and the collections refreshed by WebColl). > This step could also be used to assign a report number to the record, > and trigger any action that should only be done once the record is > approved. > > > In practice, it's only after a validator "approves" the submission that > > the record is indexed and appears in the collection. > > It is not strictly necessary for a record to be indexed in order to be > visible. It is why the above-described solution is preferred. > > Also in a typical Invenio installation there is a periodical indexing > task (BibIndex) that should be running in the scheduler (BibSched) to > index any incoming record (otherwise the record will not be indexed: > the line you have highlighted in bold in your email is only inserting > the record, not indexing it). If you would not like records to be > indexed automatically you would need to remove this periodical task, > but also add a way to specifically index the records afterwards. > Without going into the details, it might be easy to miss indexing some > records in this way. > > > This differs from the Demo Book submission(refereed) since it would be > > helpful that a user can modify the record before it's > > approved and even the validator has to view the entire record contents > > and then approve it. > > There are indeed numerous advantages of having records with pending > approval inserted, compared to the solution showcased in the Demo Book > submission. You could for eg. share the records via Baskets, have > validators discuss the relevance of the record, search/order them, etc. > > One disadvantage is the possible cluttering of the DB and generation of > of holes in the record ID ranges (and possibly report numbers ranges, > depending on the settings of the submission workflow), especially if > the submission is open to anyone. > > Best regards > -- > Jerome Caffaro ** CERN Document Server ** <http://cds.cern.ch/> >
