[Koha-bugs] [Bug 13417] New permission to allow staff to remove public lists

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.koha-community.org]

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=13417

Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart at biblibre.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|Signed Off                  |Needs Signoff

--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Druart <jonathan.druart at biblibre.com> ---
(In reply to M. de Rooy from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #12)
> > But we don't want to remove public lists.
> > So I could submit a patch to remove private lists only, do you agree with
> > that?
> 
> > I don't think it will introduce side-effects. The change is quite trivial.
> To mention one: you allow now a superlibrarian to delete entries from the
> list of someone else. The manage permission is not on entry level, but on
> list level. You can moderate a list name, delete the entire list (for a good
> reason, i hope), change ownership or so. But why allowing librarians to
> interfere with the list contents? We respect the user here by not allowing
> that if he defined it likewise. Easy fix: move your change to the
> elsif(action eq manage)-part.

The initial need was to delete shelves.
I have just submitted a patch to limit the permission to the shelves deletion.
I hope it matches your requirements.

> > > [2] You allow deletion of public lists now, but what if you want to manage a
> > > private or shared list from another user? Would it not be better to show a
> > > third tab in staff for Other lists (or even another form?) that allows you
> > > to search lists, delete, edit, change ownership, etc.?
> > I propose a quick and easy solution to answer a big and real problem for
> > librarians. Even if it is not perfect.
> > I would not like to add a new tab here, I already have submitted a big
> > change for this page (see bug 13419).
> Would a new tab really be so much work? And a new form would not interfere
> with other changes at all. I would prefer a more complete solution.

I don't think it's inside the scope of this patch.

Switch back to Needs Signoff.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.