"lock" certain book metadate fields by removing ability to edit

Bug #256241 reported by Greg Grossmeier
2
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
PDregistry.ca
Fix Released
High
Greg Grossmeier

Bug Description

Remove the ability to edit certain metadata fields by removing them from the edit template.

Marcus will give me the list of fields he wants "locked"

Changed in pdregistry.ca:
assignee: nobody → greg.grossmeier
importance: Undecided → High
status: New → In Progress
Changed in pdregistry.ca:
status: In Progress → Fix Released
Revision history for this message
Greg Grossmeier (greg.grossmeier) wrote :

Marcus:
Yes, all of the first group below including the ISBN 10 /13. Note that ISBN 10 and 13 should be combined into one field "ISBN 10/13" if possible. Also, is there anything you can do about the alignment of the Dewey field and following on a Work's Edit page?

My Response:
I removed the entries from the edit page (and made it easy to re-enable it if we need to later by just commenting them out instead of deleting). I couldn't get the alignment issue to work out. I'll give it a little more of a look today though.

Revision history for this message
solrize (solrize) wrote :

Note that messing with the template doesn't really prevent the user from changing those fields. It just makes it less convenient. If you really want to lock the fields securely, you might open an Infogami feature request. There has been an interest in something like that on Wikipedia for a long time. But they have a lot more edit wars and persistent vandalism than we do (at least for now...).

Revision history for this message
Greg Grossmeier (greg.grossmeier) wrote :
Revision history for this message
rejon (rejon) wrote : Re: [Bug 256241] Re: "lock" certain book metadate fields by removing ability to edit

This is good to know. For our review vices, I think hiding the fields is
good enough. And, now that greg has filed for this feature, and our
plans post AC review, I think we are set.

Cool

Jon

On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 18:59 +0000, solrize wrote:
> Note that messing with the template doesn't really prevent the user from
> changing those fields. It just makes it less convenient. If you really
> want to lock the fields securely, you might open an Infogami feature
> request. There has been an interest in something like that on Wikipedia
> for a long time. But they have a lot more edit wars and persistent
> vandalism than we do (at least for now...).
>
--
Jon Phillips
San Francisco, CA + Guangzhou + Beijing
GLOBAL +1.415.830.3884
CHINA +86.1.360.282.8624
<email address hidden>
http://www.rejon.org
IM/skype: kidproto
Jabber: <email address hidden>
IRC: <email address hidden>

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.