[D7] Workbench Moderation State Permission [#2819067]

Overview:
Workbench Moderation State Permission add permissions in order to control access(View|Edit|Delete) by state on content
that moderated using module Workbench Moderation.

This module use hook_node_grands() and hook_node_access_records() in order to grant access to apply the operations on content moderation.

Comparison with other modules:

Workbench Moderation State Access: Add permission to control access only in edit operation in addition it use
hook_node_access() instead of hook_node_grands() More Details.
Workbench Access Content Type: This module will add a new tab "Content Types" at the configuration page of Workbench Access, to provide permission by Section by Content Type.

The sandbox for this module is at: https://www.drupal.org/sandbox/mhammadattar/2789129

This modules is intended for the Drupal 7 platform.

A git clone command:

git clone --branch 7.x-1.x https://git.drupal.org/sandbox/MhammadAttar/2789129.git workbench_moderation_state_permission
cd workbench_moderation_state_permission

Comment	File	Size	Author
	workbench_moderation_permission_img1.png	22.75 KB	Mhammad Attar
	workbench_moderation_permission_img2.png	20.09 KB	Mhammad Attar

Support from Acquia helps fund testing for Drupal Acquia logo

Comments

Comment #1

16 October 2016 at 04:45

Mhammad Attar created an issue. See original summary.

Comment #2

Mhammad Attar CreditAttribution: Mhammad Attar as a volunteer and commented 16 October 2016 at 04:46

Issue summary:

View changes

Comment #3

PA robot CreditAttribution: PA robot commented 16 October 2016 at 10:23

We are currently quite busy with all the project applications and we prefer projects with a review bonus. Please help reviewing and put yourself on the high priority list, then we will take a look at your project right away :-)

Also, you should get your friends, colleagues or other community members involved to review this application. Let them go through the review checklist and post a comment that sets this issue to "needs work" (they found some problems with the project) or "reviewed & tested by the community" (they found no major flaws).

I'm a robot and this is an automated message from Project Applications Scraper.

Comment #4

m.attar CreditAttribution: m.attar commented 17 October 2016 at 09:25

Status:

Needs review

» Reviewed & tested by the community

Comment #5

3ssom CreditAttribution: 3ssom commented 17 October 2016 at 17:32

Status:

Reviewed & tested by the community

» Needs review

Hello Mhammad Attar,

reviewers please don't put this as RTBC without a real review using

the Project Application Review Template.

Automated Review

found some minor errors @
http://pareview.sh/pareview/httpsgitdrupalorgsandboxmhammadattar2789129git

Note that perfect adherence to Drupal Coding Standard is NOT a reason to block an application, except for total disregard of them. However, modules should follow them as closely as possible.

Manual Review

Individual user account

[Yes: Follows] the guidelines for individual user accounts.

No duplication

[Yes: Does not cause] module duplication and/or fragmentation.

Master Branch

[Yes: Follows] the guidelines for master branch.

Licensing

[Yes: Follows] the licensing requirements.

3rd party assets/code

[Yes: Follows] please read this the guidelines for 3rd party assets/code.

README.txt/README.md

[No: Does not follow] the guidelines for in-project documentation and/or the README Template.

Code long/complex enough for review

[No: Does not follow] the guidelines for project length and complexity.

Secure code

[Yes: Meets the security requirements. / No: List of security issues identified.]

Coding style & Drupal API usage

[List of identified issues in no particular order. Use (*) and (+) to indicate an issue importance. Replace the text below by the issues themselves:

automated test found some errors please fix those!
README look like its NOT aimed for your project and has links for project does NOT exist! see (Table of contents) specially Installation I think you meant Configuration. see the the link here
you implements of hook_help() I don't think this good a idea to include the same README file there? it should be about helping the user use your module not putting everything there .. plus if its in the file how would you make it translatable if you didn't use t(). ? see the Code example in the hook page ,, you can just use a summary of what matters with t() function ,, plus put the hook as the first hook in you .module

I'd also recommend another review from another user .. someone who works with workbench closely .. so I will put this as it was Needs Review.

This review uses the Project Application Review Template.

Comment #6

visabhishek CreditAttribution: visabhishek as a volunteer and at Azri Solutions commented 23 October 2016 at 16:47

Assigned:

Mhammad Attar

» Unassigned

Please do not assign tickat yourself. Please see See the workflow https://www.drupal.org/node/532400

Comment #7

Mhammad Attar CreditAttribution: Mhammad Attar as a volunteer and commented 23 October 2016 at 21:10

Hello @3ssom, @visabhishek

First of all, thank you @3ossom for taking your time trying to review the module.
and thank you @visabhishek for your comment!
Actually @3ossom I solved all the points that you mentioned in the comment.

Please Tell me if you still have any kind of problema trying to review it! Thanks!

Comment #8

apaderno

he/him

Italian

Brescia, 🇮🇹 🇪🇺

CreditAttribution: apaderno as a volunteer commented 3 May 2018 at 06:49

Priority:

Normal

» Critical

Please change back the priority to Normal after doing a review.

Comment #9

Yasser Samman

English

Amman, Jordan

CreditAttribution: Yasser Samman as a volunteer commented 3 May 2018 at 13:55

Priority:

Critical

» Normal

Automated Review

Issues found when testing with Pareview.
https://pareview.sh/pareview/https-git.drupal.org-project-workbench_mode...

Manual Review

Individual user account
Yes: Follows the guidelines for individual user accounts.

No duplication
Yes: Does not cause module duplication and/or fragmentation.

Master Branch
Yes: Follows the guidelines for master branch.

Licensing
Yes: Follows the licensing requirements.

3rd party assets/code
Yes: Follows the guidelines for 3rd party assets/code.

README.txt/README.md
Yes: Follows the guidelines for in-project documentation and/or the README Template.

Code long/complex enough for review
Yes: Follows the guidelines for project length and complexity.

Secure code
Yes: Meets the security requirements.

Coding style & Drupal API usage
1. Automated test found some issues, you need to fix them.

Good luck.

Comment #10

sleitner CreditAttribution: sleitner commented 13 August 2018 at 19:53

Status:

Needs review

» Needs work

Comment #11

apaderno

he/him

Italian

Brescia, 🇮🇹 🇪🇺

CreditAttribution: apaderno as a volunteer commented 6 November 2018 at 12:21

Status:

Needs work

» Closed (won't fix)

If you are still working on this application, you should fix all known problems and set the status to Needs review. (See also the project application workflow.)
Please don't change status of this application if you aren't sure you have time to dedicate to this application, or it will be closed again as won't fix.

I am closing this application due to lack of activity.