Is there any reason why you work with pre-defined levels for page protection (default, block unregistered users, users with the sysop right), why not base the protection on the available groups available in the user_groups table?
cheers, Peter.
On 26/01/07, Peter ipbwiki.list@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any reason why you work with pre-defined levels for page protection (default, block unregistered users, users with the sysop right), why not base the protection on the available groups available in the user_groups table?
It works based off a combination of $wgProtectionActions and $wgProtectionGroups or somesuch, I believe.
Part of the reason user_groups isn't used is because implicit membership isn't stored there, so protecting against anonymous editing, or autoconfirmed editing, wouldn't work.
Rob Church
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Peter wrote:
Is there any reason why you work with pre-defined levels for page protection (default, block unregistered users, users with the sysop right), why not base the protection on the available groups available in the user_groups table?
Are you asking about the actual page_restrictions field/table contents, or the interface for ?action=protect ?
The interface isn't as flexible as the backend in theory allows; currently it only allows you to select one from a presumably rising series of 'levels' (which list is fully customizable via $wgRestrictionLevels), while the backend in theory allows storing multiple allowed groups for each restriction type (edit, move).
Also I think it's a little funky as to whether it's supposed to be checking for permission keys or group names. It's old code that's been hacked over several times for changes, so... it's kind of uggy. ;)
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
yes I meant the interface, it's probably not so much use for wikipedia to have more levels than the ones you have now, but it could be usefull to private sites and intranets where you might want different protection levels per page for the groups available.
tx for the hint about the $wgRestrictionlevels Brion, I look into it.
Cheers, Peter.
On 1/26/07, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Peter wrote:
Is there any reason why you work with pre-defined levels for page
protection
(default, block unregistered users, users with the sysop right), why not base the protection on the available groups available in the user_groups table?
Are you asking about the actual page_restrictions field/table contents, or the interface for ?action=protect ?
The interface isn't as flexible as the backend in theory allows; currently it only allows you to select one from a presumably rising series of 'levels' (which list is fully customizable via $wgRestrictionLevels), while the backend in theory allows storing multiple allowed groups for each restriction type (edit, move).
Also I think it's a little funky as to whether it's supposed to be checking for permission keys or group names. It's old code that's been hacked over several times for changes, so... it's kind of uggy. ;)
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFuk1IwRnhpk1wk44RAkGyAKCyGdm932Z5UbEqQdC0yXAQ8cy4ZACfQENZ qsebtuUMgR4CCnUKIuNq4nM= =bdyW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org