user_help() lists only two default roles.

#616108 by agentrickard: Fixed user_help() lists only two default roles.

Hi, here's my comments :)

+++ modules/user/user.module	27 Oct 2009 17:45:56 -0000
@@ -2736,10 +2736,11 @@ function user_help($path, $arg) {
+      return t('<p>Roles allow you to fine tune the security and administration of Drupal. A role defines a group of users that have certain privileges as defined in <a href="@permissions">user permissions</a>. Examples of roles include: anonymous user, authenticated user, moderator, administrator and so on. In this area you will define the <em>role names</em> of the various roles. To delete a role choose "edit".</p><p>By default, Drupal comes with three user roles:</p>

In addition to security and administration, this is also for controlling access to content? If yes, could be added here (or moved to the permissions page where it's needed more) but somehow I think we could lose the first sentence altogether for brevity.

The link says 'user permissions' but it just says 'permissions' in the site (unless this is changing?)

'By default, Drupal comes with' should probably now say 'By default, your site comes with' following the best practices listed at #604342

+++ modules/user/user.module	27 Oct 2009 17:45:56 -0000
@@ -2736,10 +2736,11 @@ function user_help($path, $arg) {
-      <li>Anonymous user: this role is used for users that don\'t have a user account or that are not authenticated.</li>

It would be consistent & clearer the average person to say 'not logged in' rather than authenticated.

I'm on crack. Are you, too?

What?

Actually, the UX guys have been suggesting we remove all extra text (and the interface will be intuitive such as the edit links. The only thing this page needs to say is "Define the roles for your site. Examples of roles include: anonymous user, authenticated user, moderator and administrator."

Patch rerolled. Kept in link to user permissions, but added correct link to it.

Patch take 2.

changing status

Patch applied and works great. Thanks agentrickard.

Agreed, by adding this administer role to the list - the list of roles sumed up is becoming to large. It was never meant to scale, and I believe the three you see, is obvious enough to trigger the "ohh these are the defaults" mind.

Couple of small bugs:

1. The p tag should be outside the string like the help for admin/config/people/permissions is. I realize the old string was like that too, but that was because the string included a bulleted list, which it no longer does.
2. There should be a comma after "moderator" (oxford comma ftw)
3. There's an extra space at the end of the string that needs to be removed.

I'm also unsure if the built-in anonymous and authenticated roles are self-explanatory enough to warrant obliterating their descriptions altogether, but I guess now that the permissions page auto-checks perms, that helps.

I'm also not clear on why 3 of the 4 of the examples are built-in roles. They can see those already in the table below. Why not give them examples that don't exist yet (moderators is a good one, is there another?) to help guide them in making sensible naming choices?

Perhaps less examples, is also alright. Something like : Moderator, Editor ?

OK, rerolled with the suggestions from webchick and bojhan, and a few other things such as removing the phrase 'your site' which is yoroy's favorite. ;-)

It looks as if this patch has a lot of extra text in it, but it's not actually altering. I can try rerolling if there's an issue with this one.

Good job everyone! Looks clean and does what it says!

Actually, I have to change my comment... the patch needs to integrate the comments from #10.

#10
agentrickard - November 2, 2009 - 00:26

The last patch removed too much (including fields, display, and search help text). We are only trying to change 'admin/config/people/permissions', not the other sections.

Fixed that

Started over and rerolled .... have kept in the role descriptions but shorted the text...

+++ modules/user/user.module	2009-11-30 02:54:48 +0000
@@ -2736,10 +2736,11 @@
+      return t('<p>A role defines a group of users that have certain privileges as defined in <a href="@permissions">Permissions</a>. Examples of roles include editor or moderator.</p><p>Three roles are included by default:</p>

A role defines a group of users with privileges specified in permissions.... Just to shorten the text and keep things as simple as possible.

I think "Examples of roles include editor or moderator" should be left out. Unless you've a more complex site, generally you're not even going to create a new role... and given the descriptions of the following - is it really necessary to give further examples? That said, if everyone thinks its necessary... then leave it in. ;)

+++ modules/user/user.module	2009-11-30 02:54:48 +0000
@@ -2736,10 +2736,11 @@
-      <li>Anonymous user: this role is used for users that don\'t have a user account or that are not authenticated.</li>

Anonymous user: This role is used for users who are not authenticated via a user account.

Authenticated user: Any user authenticated via logging in with a user account.

Administrator: This role is granted all or most permissions by default and should be assigned with consideration.

I'm on crack. Are you, too?

See comments above, rewording...

@dcor Don't get why you are commenting on removed lines?

What about "A role defines a group of users with certain privileges specified in permissions." I think the certain part adds value, it implies specific, accurate. Also the example is fine, although your argument stands - if you don't use it, you wont read this text anyway, so lets leave it in for the large group of those who this would benefit too.

Rerolled with suggestions from Bojhan --- can we mark as RTBC?

Not sure why the default roles are introduced again in this patch, #14 webchick outlined with some hesitation that she agrees with removing them?

They were also in patch in #22. OK, Removed, rerolled. :)

RTOTHEBC!

Committed to CVS HEAD. Thanks!