*@roman*
by default rights table lists all groups
available in the system
The presented use case adds user "evalica" at Space level, on top on
standard (rights that come with a fresh installed XWiki) Wiki level groups.
That's why those groups are presented. I should have stated this.
was there an aim to allow displaying ALL of the rights that are applied to
ALL users/groups at current moment. And in
particular what if user is not
assigned to any group, where do the rights come from?
as Denis said "Registered Users" covers this case. And yes, it's a special
case that could get protected from deletion.
*@Denis *
Regarding the yellow background, I think that
their should be two different
colors: one for the row background on hover and one for the background of
what has been changed without being saved.
We need this especially when we hover the row and this information
disappears.
We should talk about this and see if we want to add a new color to the
ColorTheme. I know there was also a talk about "Hightlight applied filters
in livetable"
http://markmail.org/message/5maylva3vjgre66c . We could add
$theme.selectedColor additional to $theme.highlightColor.
*@Vincent *
Why does it say on Rights51Space for the view
right that "Allowed only for
evalica" when view right is also allowed for all users in the Admin group?
The main disadvantage of this proposal is the icon contrast. I used icons
from Silk and gray them out, but still there is not enough. We need to think
on a way to improve this. So, in basic mode, icons have an inherited and
overridden (locally set) state. You can see them at
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/RightsProposal…
two row are inherited (allow/deny), the next rows are locally set
(allow/deny) ]. Except "edit" and "delete", the other rights get lost
in
contrast.
So, if you look closely, you will see that "evalica" has the "view"
right
locally allowed, while "XWikiAdminGroup" has the right inherited (from Wiki
level, so it doesn't affect other rights at Space level; plus is an
"implicit" rights - comes from allowed "admin"). You can observe
this
setting of rights, if you look also in the menu
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/RightsProposal…
The problem with the phrase "Allowed only for evalica" is that maybe it
should be "Allowed locally only for evalica". Also this could have scaling
problems (if you allow it locally for multiple users).
The advantage of the phrase is that if you have a problem with this right
(the right is denied), you are informed who is the cause. Also the word
"allowed" can be perceived as a call to action, letting the user know that
he needs to allow the right in order to fix it.
Like Denis suggested "Overwritten by local allowance" we could find another
phrase, maybe less technical.
Why does that second column says "Users"? Shouldn't it be "Users and
Groups"?
I'll change that.
Why does the extended rights view is called "advanced"?
the programming right itself could be considered advanced while a new right
> such as "ability to post messages in a forum" would be a basic right
The separation between basic and advanced rights was done trying to separate
mandatory rights that cover the majority of XWiki functionality from rights
that the user can rely on their default value. "programming" or any other
application right IMO is not vital for a "basic" administrator.
We can change "advanced" with "extended". WDYT?
Extended is much better IMO since this means rights in addition to the standard ones and
has no notion of advanced or not.
Thanks
-Vincent