Re: Confused about ownership changes

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Confused about ownership changes

McBride, Ian S.
Following up on this (because I just had a question come in about it), is it the case that editing a node doesn't change the ownership of it? Or are there cases where an edit will change the ownership?

Also, is there a way to update ownership of pages/content for just a portion of the site?

On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Dan Wilga <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

On 1/10/14, 12:25 PM, Hilary Caws-Elwitt wrote:
Hi all,

Page ownership changes when default users edit page settings, but not when higher Drupal roles do. Is this by design?
Sort of. The intent was for ownership to always change to whoever is editing the page's settings. However, in the case of users with "administer all menus" permission, they have the ability to change ownership to anyone they please, so this is not done automatically.

It's actually important *not* to automatically change ownership to an admin in this case. Let's say User1 is an admin editing a page owned by User2, and there are no other permissions set on the page. If we were to automatically give User1 ownership, then User2 would no longer be able to edit the page's settings or add content.
We initially thought it was a bug that a default user could take away page ownership from a webmaster just by saving page settings, but the Middlebury wiki indicates that’s expected behavior (“The owner of a page is the last person who edited the page's setting” -http://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/wiki/LIS/Monster_Menus_Permissions ). But when a user with a higher role edits a page’s settings, the ownership stays with the original user.
I guess the question this raises is: what is the concern? The only possible downside I can see is this scenario:

1. A page is owned by User1, with delete/change possible for User2.
2. User2 edits the page's settings.
3. User2 now owns the page, and User1 no longer has any special access.

Is this what you're running into? If so, I could see the argument for not doing the automatic change, but I would also want to look back in the code to see if there's some historic reason I'm forgetting about why it is the way it is.
Also, the wiki says the behavior on content nodes is the same; but that doesn’t appear to be the case. A default user can make settings changes to content without changing ownership. Even removing oneself from “Who can edit or delete this content” doesn’t change ownership, so the user can lock themselves out of permissions on a piece of content—but not on a page. I’m confused… can anyone shed some light? Thanks!
Yes, your observations are correct.

---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>.

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=697213

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>


---
You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].
To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685503.6b071f880fe6a965a128164e6d09ea81&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704375
or send a blank email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Confused about ownership changes

Dan Wilga-2
The only time it can change is for users with the "administer all menus" permission, in which case the owner appears as a changeable option in the node edit form. It is not changed when an unprivileged user saves the node.

On 7/21/14, 12:13 PM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:
Following up on this (because I just had a question come in about it), is it the case that editing a node doesn't change the ownership of it? Or are there cases where an edit will change the ownership?

Also, is there a way to update ownership of pages/content for just a portion of the site?

On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Dan Wilga <[hidden email][hidden email]> wrote:

On 1/10/14, 12:25 PM, Hilary Caws-Elwitt wrote:
Hi all,

Page ownership changes when default users edit page settings, but not when higher Drupal roles do. Is this by design?
Sort of. The intent was for ownership to always change to whoever is editing the page's settings. However, in the case of users with "administer all menus" permission, they have the ability to change ownership to anyone they please, so this is not done automatically.

It's actually important *not* to automatically change ownership to an admin in this case. Let's say User1 is an admin editing a page owned by User2, and there are no other permissions set on the page. If we were to automatically give User1 ownership, then User2 would no longer be able to edit the page's settings or add content.
We initially thought it was a bug that a default user could take away page ownership from a webmaster just by saving page settings, but the Middlebury wiki indicates that’s expected behavior (“The owner of a page is the last person who edited the page's setting” -http://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/wiki/LIS/Monster_Menus_Permissions ). But when a user with a higher role edits a page’s settings, the ownership stays with the original user.
I guess the question this raises is: what is the concern? The only possible downside I can see is this scenario:

1. A page is owned by User1, with delete/change possible for User2.
2. User2 edits the page's settings.
3. User2 now owns the page, and User1 no longer has any special access.

Is this what you're running into? If so, I could see the argument for not doing the automatic change, but I would also want to look back in the code to see if there's some historic reason I'm forgetting about why it is the way it is.
Also, the wiki says the behavior on content nodes is the same; but that doesn’t appear to be the case. A default user can make settings changes to content without changing ownership. Even removing oneself from “Who can edit or delete this content” doesn’t change ownership, so the user can lock themselves out of permissions on a piece of content—but not on a page. I’m confused… can anyone shed some light? Thanks!
Yes, your observations are correct.

---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email][hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=697213

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email][hidden email]


---
You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].
To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685500.19fa7de7038497527f6a88cf1629251d&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704375
or send a blank email to [hidden email]

---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685503.6b071f880fe6a965a128164e6d09ea81&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704377

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Confused about ownership changes

McBride, Ian S.
In reply to this post by McBride, Ian S.
Thanks for that clarification. I've had the wrong idea stuck in my head for years.

Would you be open to a patch to add an optional field to /admin/mm/reassign that allows admins to scope the permissions/ownership re-assignment to a particular portion of the site based on MMTID? The use case we have is an editor who changed jobs within the institution after having built out most of the content for a department.

On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Dan Wilga <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

The only time it can change is for users with the "administer all menus" permission, in which case the owner appears as a changeable option in the node edit form. It is not changed when an unprivileged user saves the node.

On 7/21/14, 12:13 PM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:

Following up on this (because I just had a question come in about it), is it the case that editing a node doesn't change the ownership of it? Or are there cases where an edit will change the ownership?

Also, is there a way to update ownership of pages/content for just a portion of the site?

On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Dan Wilga <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

On 1/10/14, 12:25 PM, Hilary Caws-Elwitt wrote:
Hi all,

Page ownership changes when default users edit page settings, but not when higher Drupal roles do. Is this by design?
Sort of. The intent was for ownership to always change to whoever is editing the page's settings. However, in the case of users with "administer all menus" permission, they have the ability to change ownership to anyone they please, so this is not done automatically.

It's actually important *not* to automatically change ownership to an admin in this case. Let's say User1 is an admin editing a page owned by User2, and there are no other permissions set on the page. If we were to automatically give User1 ownership, then User2 would no longer be able to edit the page's settings or add content.
We initially thought it was a bug that a default user could take away page ownership from a webmaster just by saving page settings, but the Middlebury wiki indicates that’s expected behavior (“The owner of a page is the last person who edited the page's setting” -http://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/wiki/LIS/Monster_Menus_Permissions ). But when a user with a higher role edits a page’s settings, the ownership stays with the original user.
I guess the question this raises is: what is the concern? The only possible downside I can see is this scenario:

1. A page is owned by User1, with delete/change possible for User2.
2. User2 edits the page's settings.
3. User2 now owns the page, and User1 no longer has any special access.

Is this what you're running into? If so, I could see the argument for not doing the automatic change, but I would also want to look back in the code to see if there's some historic reason I'm forgetting about why it is the way it is.
Also, the wiki says the behavior on content nodes is the same; but that doesn’t appear to be the case. A default user can make settings changes to content without changing ownership. Even removing oneself from “Who can edit or delete this content” doesn’t change ownership, so the user can lock themselves out of permissions on a piece of content—but not on a page. I’m confused… can anyone shed some light? Thanks!
Yes, your observations are correct.

---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>.

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=697213

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>


---
You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685500.19fa7de7038497527f6a88cf1629251d&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704375
or send a blank email to [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>



---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>.

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704377

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>


---
You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].
To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685503.6b071f880fe6a965a128164e6d09ea81&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704380
or send a blank email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Confused about ownership changes

Dan Wilga-2
In reply to this post by McBride, Ian S.
Sure, but combining that with the current option to exclude personal
homepages might be tricky in terms of the UI.

Is adding an MMTID really so much more useful than the default case of
the entire tree? How does the default case not work for you now?

On 7/21/14, 1:19 PM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:

> Thanks for that clarification. I've had the wrong idea stuck in my head for years.
>
> Would you be open to a patch to add an optional field to /admin/mm/reassign that allows admins to scope the permissions/ownership re-assignment to a particular portion of the site based on MMTID? The use case we have is an editor who changed jobs within the institution after having built out most of the content for a department.
>
> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Dan Wilga <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> The only time it can change is for users with the "administer all menus" permission, in which case the owner appears as a changeable option in the node edit form. It is not changed when an unprivileged user saves the node.
>
> On 7/21/14, 12:13 PM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:
>
> Following up on this (because I just had a question come in about it), is it the case that editing a node doesn't change the ownership of it? Or are there cases where an edit will change the ownership?
>
> Also, is there a way to update ownership of pages/content for just a portion of the site?
>
> On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Dan Wilga <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> On 1/10/14, 12:25 PM, Hilary Caws-Elwitt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Page ownership changes when default users edit page settings, but not when higher Drupal roles do. Is this by design?
> Sort of. The intent was for ownership to always change to whoever is editing the page's settings. However, in the case of users with "administer all menus" permission, they have the ability to change ownership to anyone they please, so this is not done automatically.
>
> It's actually important *not* to automatically change ownership to an admin in this case. Let's say User1 is an admin editing a page owned by User2, and there are no other permissions set on the page. If we were to automatically give User1 ownership, then User2 would no longer be able to edit the page's settings or add content.
> We initially thought it was a bug that a default user could take away page ownership from a webmaster just by saving page settings, but the Middlebury wiki indicates that’s expected behavior (“The owner of a page is the last person who edited the page's setting” -http://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/wiki/LIS/Monster_Menus_Permissions ). But when a user with a higher role edits a page’s settings, the ownership stays with the original user.
> I guess the question this raises is: what is the concern? The only possible downside I can see is this scenario:
>
> 1. A page is owned by User1, with delete/change possible for User2.
> 2. User2 edits the page's settings.
> 3. User2 now owns the page, and User1 no longer has any special access.
>
> Is this what you're running into? If so, I could see the argument for not doing the automatic change, but I would also want to look back in the code to see if there's some historic reason I'm forgetting about why it is the way it is.
> Also, the wiki says the behavior on content nodes is the same; but that doesn’t appear to be the case. A default user can make settings changes to content without changing ownership. Even removing oneself from “Who can edit or delete this content” doesn’t change ownership, so the user can lock themselves out of permissions on a piece of content—but not on a page. I’m confused… can anyone shed some light? Thanks!
> Yes, your observations are correct.
>
> ---
>
> You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>.
>
> To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=697213
>
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>
> or send a blank email to [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>.
> To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685500.19fa7de7038497527f6a88cf1629251d&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704375
> or send a blank email to [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>.
>
> To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704377
>
> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>
> or send a blank email to [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].
> To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685500.19fa7de7038497527f6a88cf1629251d&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704380
> or send a blank email to [hidden email]


---
You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].
To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685503.6b071f880fe6a965a128164e6d09ea81&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704381
or send a blank email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Confused about ownership changes

McBride, Ian S.
In reply to this post by McBride, Ian S.
Good point about that UI. The reason for not affecting the entire site tree is that we want to replace the user's ownership/permissions, but only for one department. They need to retain ownership/permissions elsewhere on the site. But since ownership doesn't get updated via cascading permissions changes, this would require updating each piece of content in that one department site (or manually running an UPDATE statement on the database).

Since this has come up only once in six years, I'll wait and see if it comes up again and think more in the meantime about the best way to handle it.


On Jul 21, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Dan Wilga <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sure, but combining that with the current option to exclude personal homepages might be tricky in terms of the UI.
>
> Is adding an MMTID really so much more useful than the default case of the entire tree? How does the default case not work for you now?
>
> On 7/21/14, 1:19 PM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:
>> Thanks for that clarification. I've had the wrong idea stuck in my head for years.
>>
>> Would you be open to a patch to add an optional field to /admin/mm/reassign that allows admins to scope the permissions/ownership re-assignment to a particular portion of the site based on MMTID? The use case we have is an editor who changed jobs within the institution after having built out most of the content for a department.
>>
>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Dan Wilga <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> The only time it can change is for users with the "administer all menus" permission, in which case the owner appears as a changeable option in the node edit form. It is not changed when an unprivileged user saves the node.
>>
>> On 7/21/14, 12:13 PM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:
>>
>> Following up on this (because I just had a question come in about it), is it the case that editing a node doesn't change the ownership of it? Or are there cases where an edit will change the ownership?
>>
>> Also, is there a way to update ownership of pages/content for just a portion of the site?
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Dan Wilga <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/10/14, 12:25 PM, Hilary Caws-Elwitt wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Page ownership changes when default users edit page settings, but not when higher Drupal roles do. Is this by design?
>> Sort of. The intent was for ownership to always change to whoever is editing the page's settings. However, in the case of users with "administer all menus" permission, they have the ability to change ownership to anyone they please, so this is not done automatically.
>>
>> It's actually important *not* to automatically change ownership to an admin in this case. Let's say User1 is an admin editing a page owned by User2, and there are no other permissions set on the page. If we were to automatically give User1 ownership, then User2 would no longer be able to edit the page's settings or add content.
>> We initially thought it was a bug that a default user could take away page ownership from a webmaster just by saving page settings, but the Middlebury wiki indicates that’s expected behavior (“The owner of a page is the last person who edited the page's setting” -http://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/wiki/LIS/Monster_Menus_Permissions ). But when a user with a higher role edits a page’s settings, the ownership stays with the original user.
>> I guess the question this raises is: what is the concern? The only possible downside I can see is this scenario:
>>
>> 1. A page is owned by User1, with delete/change possible for User2.
>> 2. User2 edits the page's settings.
>> 3. User2 now owns the page, and User1 no longer has any special access.
>>
>> Is this what you're running into? If so, I could see the argument for not doing the automatic change, but I would also want to look back in the code to see if there's some historic reason I'm forgetting about why it is the way it is.
>> Also, the wiki says the behavior on content nodes is the same; but that doesn’t appear to be the case. A default user can make settings changes to content without changing ownership. Even removing oneself from “Who can edit or delete this content” doesn’t change ownership, so the user can lock themselves out of permissions on a piece of content—but not on a page. I’m confused… can anyone shed some light? Thanks!
>> Yes, your observations are correct.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>.
>>
>> To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=697213
>>
>> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>>
>> or send a blank email to [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>.
>> To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685500.19fa7de7038497527f6a88cf1629251d&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704375
>> or send a blank email to [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>.
>>
>> To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704377
>>
>> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>>
>> or send a blank email to [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].
>> To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685500.19fa7de7038497527f6a88cf1629251d&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704380
>> or send a blank email to [hidden email]
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].
> To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704381
> or send a blank email to [hidden email]


---
You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].
To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685503.6b071f880fe6a965a128164e6d09ea81&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704382
or send a blank email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RE: Confused about ownership changes

Jay Dansand
In reply to this post by McBride, Ian S.
Every once in a while (maybe 3 times a year) we run into similar issues (and additionally, the issue of selectively updating permissions throughout a sub-tree without affecting other permissions).  I'd love a patch for that (reassigning ownership, permissions, etc.).  Currently there are several lines of SQL we use as a template each time, and eventually we plan on wrapping that SQL in a module, but just haven't gotten around to it yet.

-- 
Jay Dansand '08
Senior Web Application Developer
Technology Services, Seeley G. Mudd Library
Lawrence University
Appleton, WI
920-832-6585
[hidden email]


-----Original Message-----
From: McBride, Ian S. [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 12:36 PM
To: Monster Menus Development
Subject: Re: Confused about ownership changes

Good point about that UI. The reason for not affecting the entire site tree is that we want to replace the user's ownership/permissions, but only for one department. They need to retain ownership/permissions elsewhere on the site. But since ownership doesn't get updated via cascading permissions changes, this would require updating each piece of content in that one department site (or manually running an UPDATE statement on the database).

Since this has come up only once in six years, I'll wait and see if it comes up again and think more in the meantime about the best way to handle it.


On Jul 21, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Dan Wilga <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sure, but combining that with the current option to exclude personal homepages might be tricky in terms of the UI.
>
> Is adding an MMTID really so much more useful than the default case of the entire tree? How does the default case not work for you now?
>
> On 7/21/14, 1:19 PM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:
>> Thanks for that clarification. I've had the wrong idea stuck in my head for years.
>>
>> Would you be open to a patch to add an optional field to /admin/mm/reassign that allows admins to scope the permissions/ownership re-assignment to a particular portion of the site based on MMTID? The use case we have is an editor who changed jobs within the institution after having built out most of the content for a department.
>>
>> On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Dan Wilga <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> The only time it can change is for users with the "administer all menus" permission, in which case the owner appears as a changeable option in the node edit form. It is not changed when an unprivileged user saves the node.
>>
>> On 7/21/14, 12:13 PM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:
>>
>> Following up on this (because I just had a question come in about it), is it the case that editing a node doesn't change the ownership of it? Or are there cases where an edit will change the ownership?
>>
>> Also, is there a way to update ownership of pages/content for just a portion of the site?
>>
>> On Jan 10, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Dan Wilga <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/10/14, 12:25 PM, Hilary Caws-Elwitt wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Page ownership changes when default users edit page settings, but not when higher Drupal roles do. Is this by design?
>> Sort of. The intent was for ownership to always change to whoever is editing the page's settings. However, in the case of users with "administer all menus" permission, they have the ability to change ownership to anyone they please, so this is not done automatically.
>>
>> It's actually important *not* to automatically change ownership to an admin in this case. Let's say User1 is an admin editing a page owned by User2, and there are no other permissions set on the page. If we were to automatically give User1 ownership, then User2 would no longer be able to edit the page's settings or add content.
>> We initially thought it was a bug that a default user could take away page ownership from a webmaster just by saving page settings, but the Middlebury wiki indicates that's expected behavior ("The owner of a page is the last person who edited the page's setting" -http://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/wiki/LIS/Monster_Menus_Permissions ). But when a user with a higher role edits a page's settings, the ownership stays with the original user.
>> I guess the question this raises is: what is the concern? The only possible downside I can see is this scenario:
>>
>> 1. A page is owned by User1, with delete/change possible for User2.
>> 2. User2 edits the page's settings.
>> 3. User2 now owns the page, and User1 no longer has any special access.
>>
>> Is this what you're running into? If so, I could see the argument for not doing the automatic change, but I would also want to look back in the code to see if there's some historic reason I'm forgetting about why it is the way it is.
>> Also, the wiki says the behavior on content nodes is the same; but that doesn't appear to be the case. A default user can make settings changes to content without changing ownership. Even removing oneself from "Who can edit or delete this content" doesn't change ownership, so the user can lock themselves out of permissions on a piece of content-but not on a page. I'm confused. can anyone shed some light? Thanks!
>> Yes, your observations are correct.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>.
>>
>> To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=697213
>>
>> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>>
>> or send a blank email to [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>.
>> To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685500.19fa7de7038497527f6a88cf1629251d&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704375
>> or send a blank email to [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>.
>>
>> To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704377
>>
>> (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)
>>
>> or send a blank email to [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].
>> To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685500.19fa7de7038497527f6a88cf1629251d&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704380
>> or send a blank email to [hidden email]
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].
> To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704381
> or send a blank email to [hidden email]


---
You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].
To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=849053.214f550f57fa54a976b5f2d087b6d379&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704382
or send a blank email to [hidden email]

---
You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].
To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685503.6b071f880fe6a965a128164e6d09ea81&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704383
or send a blank email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Confused about ownership changes

Dan Wilga-2
In reply to this post by McBride, Ian S.
On 7/21/14, 1:35 PM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:
They need to retain ownership/permissions elsewhere on the site. But since ownership doesn't get updated via cascading permissions changes,
It doesn't? See these lines, starting at around 4376 of mm_content.inc:
if ($count++) {    // recursive: item after the first
  $updated_rows = db_update('mm_tree')
    ->fields(array('default_mode' => $parameters['default_mode'], 'uid' => $parameters['uid']))
    ->condition('mmtid', $t)
    ->execute();
  if ($updated_rows) mm_content_write_revision($t);
}

---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685503.6b071f880fe6a965a128164e6d09ea81&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704388

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Confused about ownership changes

McBride, Ian S.
In reply to this post by McBride, Ian S.
Good note, and thanks for your help today.

The cascading overwrite of permissions will reset ownership, as you note below, but the cascading append that we've developed here at Middlebury doesn't do that yet. We'll update it to cover that change and re-share that code for anyone interested in using it.

On Jul 21, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Dan Wilga <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

On 7/21/14, 1:35 PM, McBride, Ian S. wrote:

They need to retain ownership/permissions elsewhere on the site. But since ownership doesn't get updated via cascading permissions changes,

It doesn't? See these lines, starting at around 4376 of mm_content.inc:

if ($count++) {    // recursive: item after the first
  $updated_rows = db_update('mm_tree')
    ->fields(array('default_mode' => $parameters['default_mode'], 'uid' => $parameters['uid']))
    ->condition('mmtid', $t)
    ->execute();
  if ($updated_rows) mm_content_write_revision($t);
}


---

You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>.

To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685439.7e7cbccf9bb225cf8471bffe1cb67503&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704388

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>


---
You are currently subscribed to monster_menus as: [hidden email].
To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.middlebury.edu/u?id=685503.6b071f880fe6a965a128164e6d09ea81&n=T&l=monster_menus&o=704390
or send a blank email to [hidden email]
Loading...