On 4/4/13, Matevž Bradač <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4. Apr, 2013, at 2:01, Olemis Lang wrote: [...] >> >> I don't think it's a good idea to set empty owner by >> default . If not specified explicitly it should default to >> req.authname ... or maybe something else ... >> >> Of course , permissions setup for new products may be customized by >> implementing resource listeners . Therefore the architecture will not >> constrain users willing to do smething else . > > I completely agree here. I found it strange that in the default "add > product" > form (/main/products?action=new), the owner field is not even present. > So I think your suggestion of using the req.authname as the owner sounds > good. > > In the admin add product (/main/admin/ticket/products) the owner field is > present > however, which supports your suggestion even more. For this form I'd say > that at > least a warning should be issued if no owner is specified, and perhaps the > owner > should be set to req.authname here as well. >
In product admin panel (for TRAC_ADMIN users) I do think the field must be required . In product scope only products owned by req.authname user should be listed . These may be improvements related to #430 afaics . [...] >> >> Also recall that there's no such thing like permission schemes for new >> products . That's a TODO (see #495) . >> ;) >> > > Then there's also #408. =) > sorry . I closed #495 as a duplicate . I guess I searched for 'permission schema' instead of 'permission scheme' and got nothing useful :-$ . I did search <ot> ... so I'm hoping the matches made by BloodhoundSearch will be a bit fuzzy to deal with or suggest word similarities . </ot> -- Regards, Olemis.
