This is touching off of the bug reported in issue #1127722: Moderators may not see the most recent edit before publishing.
It would be useful to have an optional "strict permissions" mode to restrict editing of the current draft by certain users depending on the current moderation state. For example, if an author creates a new draft and sets it to "Needs Review," there should be a way to block the author from editing it further while it is being reviewed, unless the moderator bounces it back to "Draft."

Comments

Cyclodex’s picture

Cyclodex CreditAttribution: Cyclodex commented

subscribing for this

I came to the same problem, because I wanted to test Scheduler Module

  • But that needs also some additional effort and so should be discussed in an other task perhaps.

Here I want to share my Idea about including scheduled stuff, regarding to that option:

Like the statement above from muriqui it would be nice to add such an option.
For me it has not to be a blocking, perhaps it will also help to just let the author create a new draft, and not edit the current one. This behaviour could also help if you wan to allow the moderator to set a revision for publishing in the future...

  • ( For this there could be a new moderation state like "will be published" and the scheduler module should then bring the revision online on the desired date (and change the state to "published").

But even you will leave the automatic schedule part, and would set that by hand:

  • The author wants to add some stuff, and unfortunately he will edit this current state, which is awaiting to go live, instead of creating a new revision...

So this were just my thoughts, I know that this would relate more to the #1127722: Moderators may not see the most recent edit before publishing task... But for me it seems also a bit related to this stuff here.

stevector’s picture

stevector
he/him
CreditAttribution: stevector commented

Muriqui, what kind of system/UI do you have in mind for defining such controls?

stevector’s picture

stevector
he/him
CreditAttribution: stevector commented
Status: Active » Postponed (maintainer needs more info)
muriqui’s picture

muriqui CreditAttribution: muriqui commented
Status: Postponed (maintainer needs more info) » Active

Muriqui, what kind of system/UI do you have in mind for defining such controls?

I was afraid you were going to ask me that, Steve. :) I haven't had a chance to write a patch for this to get the details worked out, but my first thought is that this could just be an optional boolean variable setting, i.e. "Prevent users from editing drafts that they cannot moderate" (though there's probably a better way to phrase that). This could either be a single checkbox on the WBM config page, or else a hidden setting like workbench_moderation_per_node_type.

For implementation, I'm thinking that just a simple conditional in workbench_moderation_node_access() would do the trick... if the option is enabled AND op is 'update' AND workbench_moderation_states_next() returns empty, then return NODE_ACCESS_DENY... maybe?

westbywest’s picture

westbywest CreditAttribution: westbywest commented

I am curious about progress on this issue. I'm looking to block a role's ability to add ANY new drafts (aka revisions) once that node has been put unto the published state.

Jansel’s picture

Jansel CreditAttribution: Jansel commented

How to create a new state, for example: drafts, Needs Review, publish and ready

Anonymous’s picture

Anonymous (not verified) CreditAttribution: Anonymous commented

I'm subscribe for this feature...
Any news ?

siefca’s picture

siefca CreditAttribution: siefca commented

Permissions (similar to tabs) could solve this problem. Then we could have:

                                              Admin  Editor  Reviewer
    
    Edit moderated content in Draft *         [ ]     [ ]     [ ]
    Edit moderated content in Needs Review    [ ]     [ ]     [ ]
    …
    Edit published content                    [ ]     [ ]     [ ]

* - editing (own or other's) content will of course require additional permissions to that content

siefca’s picture

siefca CreditAttribution: siefca commented
Priority: Normal » Major

Changed priority to major since many users wants it and it seems easy to implement (imvho).

vchen’s picture

vchen CreditAttribution: vchen commented

Would LOVE this! Been trying to find all sorts of workaround for this effect...trying Rules, Content Locking

Hope this is implemented soon!

MrAlex’s picture

MrAlex CreditAttribution: MrAlex commented

I am also subscribing because I want to be able to prevent users in the Author role from being able to edit published content or content that is under review - it defeats the purpose of a workflow to allow it to be ignored. For government departments / enterprise, it's a real concern.

I like Muriqui's idea above about a simple setting to "Prevent users from editing content that's in a state they can not moderate" - simple in concept and it makes sense.

gabriel.achille’s picture

gabriel.achille CreditAttribution: gabriel.achille as a volunteer commented
Issue summary: View changes
Status: Active » Closed (works as designed)

It is an old ticket but for the record: there is a workbench_moderation based module that provides this feature now:
Workbench Moderation State Access

delacosta456’s picture

delacosta456 CreditAttribution: delacosta456 commented

hi thread ..

Trully Workbench Moderation State Access may be helpful as said @gabriel.achille but for have testing both i think Workbench Moderation State Permission go far in permission feature