Needs work
Project:
Paragraphs
Version:
8.x-1.x-dev
Component:
Module: Type Permissions
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Task
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
24 Mar 2023 at 13:51 UTC
Updated:
6 Jun 2026 at 02:12 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent, Most recent file

Comments
Comment #2
benjifisherComment #3
igor mashevskyi commentedComment #5
igor mashevskyi commentedComment #6
igor mashevskyi commentedComment #7
benjifisher@Igor Mashevskyi, thanks for working on this!
I am not sure why the test failed. When I install the
replicatemodule and run the test locally, it passes:In addition to enabling the Permissions tab, the MR adds the dependency on the paragraph type (config entity) as described in the change record Permissions can define dependencies. I will add that to the issue description and let the maintainers decide whether they would like to do that in a separate issue. If so, then that should be a bug report, not a task. Either way, it might be worth adding a test that the permissions are removed if the paragraph type is removed.
Oh, I remember: the Permissions form for the type uses config dependency to find the related permissions, so the dependencies have to be declared in order for the form to work.
I tested manually by enabling the Paragraphs Library and Paragraphs Type Permissions modules. Going to
/admin/structure/paragraphs_type, I found the "Manage Permissions" option in the drop button, and it led me to this page:I will make a few suggestions on the MR. I am setting the status to NW now.
Comment #8
joelseguin@benjifisher - thanks for the patch! I had assumed this functionality was already part of Paragraphs until I noticed it wasn't. I think it's very helpful for site builders as it improves the authoring experience especially when making use of many Paragraphs. It also serves as a reminder to actually set permissions for any new Paragraph that is created.
I tested the patch against the latest stable 1.x version and it worked without issues.
Comment #9
benjifisher@joelseguin: You are welcome. Technically, I just created the issue and reviewed the patch (or the merge request). Thank you for bumping this issue.
@IgorMashevskyi: Sorry, I did not notice that you updated the MR. I regularly check for issues that have been updated, but not MRs. I will set the status to NR now, and I will try to have another look soon.
Comment #10
igor mashevskyi commentedHi guys, any updates here?
Can somebody check MR?
Thank you in advance
Comment #11
benjifisherI looked again at the MR. There is one open thread from my previous review, and I noticed that the change to the test seems to be unnecessary. (Or if it is necessary, it needs some explanation.) I ran the test locally with and without the change, and it passed (with deprecation notices) both ways.