I've created an action programmatically and added a VBO to a view in order to execute the action on one or more users. The action itself simply removes a few roles and adds a new role to the selected users. I call user_save from within the action to save the changes to the roles.
If I look at the user_roles table in the database while the action is running, I can see the role ids for the specific user, changing to the new role in realtime. However, when the VBO is complete, it seems to revert back to the original user object so that none of the old roles have been removed and the new role hasn't been added. It has to be something happening after my action is executed, but I can't imagine what it is.
Oddly enough, if I run the VBO a second time, it seems to work.
My action is defined in hook_action_info as type "user" and triggers is an array with "any" as the only parameter.
If I call the action directly using actions_do, it works perfectly the first time.
Any ideas?
I suggest to use a few users to test the VBO and also implement hook_user_update with dpm (devel module) and debug_backtrace. This could give a hint of what is happening, it's a weird behaviour that you will discover only debugging.
If you have more info please append it to your question so everyone could help.
Hope that helps.
Related
I try to manage the access rights for users to edit or view different articles.
Articles can be created dynamically and the rights should be editable for every article.
In my case, I have a User object and multiple other objects (Article, and more...).
I need to check if a User can read or write any kind of object.
I actually see there is a method Voters, but they only can manage User groups?
Can somebody help me?
A Voter can decide almost anything - usually it's based on a user's permission, but it doesn't have to be - I've used one as a 'feature flag' check, with a value fetched from a configuration, or database entry to show something - or not, as an example.
The page on voters has an example on viewing, or editing a database record (a Post entity, via a $this->denyAccessUnlessGranted('edit', $post);.
In your instance, the voter would be passed the 'attribute', the object (Article, etc) you want to check on, and gets the current user from a service. If that user has the appropriate permission to read/edit/delete the Article or other object, it returns true.
Is there a way to reassign all nodes associated with a user to another user when the first one is deleted instead of it going to anonymous?
To ask another way, I when I go to delete johnsmith, I am looking for the option to reassign all of johnsmith's content to janesmith.
I know this functionality exists within WordPress.
I do not know of any way to do this without coding.
In code I would look at
https://api.drupal.org/api/drupal/modules%21user%21user.api.php/function/hook_user_cancel_methods_alter/7.x
to define and add a new method when cancelling a user. And
https://api.drupal.org/api/drupal/modules%21user%21user.api.php/function/hook_user_cancel/7.x
to act on the new method.
I will try to be as concise as possible. I'm using Flex/Hibernate technologies for my app. I also use Cairngorm micro-architecture for Flex. Because i'm beginner, i have probably misunderstand something about Caringorm's ModelLocator purpose. I have following problem...
Suppose that we have next data model:
USER ----------------> TOPIC -------------> COMMENT
1 M 1 M
User can start many topics, topics can have many comments etc. It is pretty simple model, just for example. In hibernate, i use EAGER fetching strategy for unidirectional USER->TOPIC and TOPIC->COMMENT relations(here is no question about best practices etc, this is just example of problem).
My ModelLocator looks like this:
...
public class ModelLocator ....
{
//private instance, private constructor, getInstance() etc...
...
//app state
public var users:ArrayCollection;
public var selectedUser:UserVO;
public var selectedTopic:TopicVO;
}
Because i use eager fetching, i can 'walk' through all object graph on my Flex client without hitting the database. This is ok as long as i don't need to insert, update, or delete some of the domain instances. But when that comes, problems with synchronization arise.
For example, if i want to show details about some user from some UserListView, when user(actor) select that user in list, i will take selected index in UserList, get element from users ArrayCollection in ModelLocator at selected index and show details about selected user.
When i want to insert new User, ok, I will save that user in database and in IResponder result method i will add that user in ModelLocator.users ArrayCollection.
But, when i want to add new topic for some user, if i still want to use convenience of EAGER fetching, i need to reload user list again... And to add topic to selected user... And if user is in some other location(indirectly), i need to insert topic there also.
Update is even worst. In that case i need to write even some logic...
My question: is this good way of using ModelLocator in Cairngorm? It seems to me that, because of mentioned, EAGER fetching is somehow pointless. In case of using EAGER fetching, synchronization on Flex client can become big problem. Should I always hit database in order to manipulate with my domain model?
EDIT:
It seems that i didn't make myself clear enough. Excuse me for that.
Ok, i use Spring in technology stack also and DTO(DVO) pattern with flex/spring (de)serializer, but i just wanted to stay out of that because i'm trying to point out how do you stay synchronized with database state in your flex app. I don't even mention multi-user scenario and poling/pushing topic which is, maybe, my solution because i use standard request-response mechanism. I didn't provide some concrete code, because this seems conceptual problem for me, and i use standard Cairngorm terms in order to explain pseudo-names which i use for class names, var names etc.
I'll try to 'simplify' again: you have flex client for administration of above mentioned domain(CRUD for each of domain classes), you have ListOfUsersView(shows list of users with basic infos about them), UserDetailsView(shows user details and list of user topics with delete option for each of topic), InsertNewUserTopicView(form to insert new topic) etc.
Each of view which displays some infos is synchronized with ModelLocator state variables, for example:
ListOfUsersView ------binded to------> users:ArrayCollection in ModelLocator
UserDetailsView ------binded to------> selectedUser:UserVO in ModelLocator
etc.
View state transition look like this:
ListOfUsersView----detailsClick---->UserDetailsView---insertTopic--->InsertTopicView
So when i click on "Details" button in ListOfUsersView, in my logic, i get index of selected row in ListOfUsers, after that i take UserVO object from users:ArrayCollection in ModelLocator at mentioned index, after that i set that UserVO object as selectedUser:UserVO in ModelLocator and after that i change view state to UserDetailsView(it shows user details and selectedUser.topics) which is synchronized with selectedUser:UserVO in ModelLocator.
Now, i click "Insert new topic" button on UserDetailsView which results in InsertTopicView form. I enter some data, click "Save topic"(after successful save, UserDetailsView is shown again) and problem arise.
Because of my EAGER-ly fetched objects, i didn't hit the database in mentioned transitions and because of that there are two places for which i need to be concerned when insert new topic for selected user: one is instance of selectedUser object in users:ArrayCollection (because my logic select users from that collection and shows them in UserDetailsView), and second is selectedUser:UserVO(in order to sync UserDetailsView which comes after successfull save operation).
So, again my question arises... Should i hit database in every transition, should i reload users:ArrayCollection and selectedUser:UserVO after save in order to synchronize database state with flex client, should i take saved topic and on client side, without hitting the database, programmatically pass all places which i need to update or...?
It seems to me that EAGER-ly fetched object with their associations is not good idea. Am i wrong?
Or, to 'simplify' :) again, what should you do in the mentioned scenario? So, you need to handle click on "Save topic" button, and now what...?
Again, i really try to explain this as plastic as possible because i'm confused with this. So, please forgive me for my long post.
From my point of view the point isn't in fetching mode itself but in client/server interaction. From my previous experience with it I've finally found some disadvantages of using pure domain objects (especially with eager fetching) for client/server interaction:
You have to pass all the child collections maybe without necessity to use them on a client side. In your case it is very likely you'll display topics and comments not for all users you get from server. The most like situation you need to display user list then display topics for one of the selected users and then comments for one of the selected topics. But in current implementation you receive all the topics and comments even if they are not needed to display. It is very possible you'll receive all your DB in a single query.
Another problem is it can be very insecure to get all the user data (or some other data) with all fields (emails, addresses, passwords, credit card numbers etc).
I think there can be other reasons not to use pure domain objects especially with eager fetching.
I suggest you to introduce some Mapper (or Assembler) layer to convert your domain objects to Data Transfer Objects aka DTO. So every query to your service layer will receive data from your DAO or Active Record and then convert it to corresponding DTO using corresponding Mapper. So you can get user list without private data and query some additional user details with a separate query.
On a client side you can use these DTOs directly or convert them into client domain objects. You can do it in your Cairngorm responders.
This way you can avoid a lot of your client side problems which you described.
For a Mapper layer you can use Dozer library or create your own lightweight mappers.
Hope this helps!
EDIT
What about your details I'd prefer to get user list with necessary displayable fields like first name and last name (to display in list). Say a list of SimpleUserRepresentationDTO.
Then if user requests user details for editing you request UserDetailsDTO for that user and fill tour selectedUser fields in model with it. The same is for topics.
The only problem is displaying list of users after user details editing. You can:
Request the whole list again. The advantage is you can display changes performed by other users. But if the list is too long it can be very ineffective to query all the users each time even if they are SimpleUserRepresentationDTO with minimal data.
When you get success from server on user details saving you can find corresponding user in model's user list and replace changed details there.
Tell you the truth, there's no good way of using Cairngorm. It's a crap framework.
I'm not too sure exactly what you mean by eager fetching (or what exactly is your problem), but whatever it is, it's still a request/response kind of deal and this shouldn't be a problem per say unless you're not doing something right; in which case I can't see your code.
As for frameworks, I recommend you look at RobotLegs or Parsley.
Look at the "dpHibernate" project. It implements "lazy loading" on the Flex client.
I have the following scenario:
Editor Role should not be allowed to
delete nodes. Therefore the corresponding
permission is de-selected in the
permissions page.
However Editor
should be able to to delete nodes
from Views Bulk operations. Using
Rules an action is created called
"safe delete" that checks things like
if the node is not published etc.
before deleting the node.
The problem is the Views Bulk Operations respects Node permissions. Editor will not be able to delete the node as he has not been given that permission. Is there a way that Editor can become a higher role user (as sort of sudo) while performing that action in VBO? Alternatively is there a way to tell VBO to ignore node access for this action?
I'm sure this is a mainstream requirement but I can't seem to find a solution.
Solutions which do not involve programming will be preferred.
The simple, but not-so-clean way, is the route you already took, but with an additional, small module to help it.
has a function my_module_can_delete($user), that returns TRUE if the user is allowed to delete, FALSE if the user is not.
implements hook_form_alter() to modify and delete the button on the node_edit form, if my_module_can_delete($user)
implements hook_form_alter() to modify the confirm form that is called on /node/%nid/delete, and add a message there, telling the user he or she my_module_can_delete($user). This should be enough, since disabling this form will result in users not being able to get past this form. FORM-API will take care of that.
However, you can make it more sturdy, to catch other deleting modules:
implements hook_nodeapi(), $op == 'delete' to catch delete actions and halt (by invoking drupal_goto(), or calling drupal_access_denied() to enforce a user-error. Only catch delete-actions if the referer was the delete-confirm-form as mentioned above. Or, more secure, whitelist your VBO-action and return false on all other referers. A referer can often be found by reading out the $node passed along to hook_nodeapi().
A, IMHO, much cleaner, but probably more intensive alternative, would be to simply make sure your batches/actions are called on every delete action.
In a module, you could do this by avoiding all the VBO-configuration and leaving all the extra-delete actions out of there.
Then write a module that implements hook_nodeapi() and then calls all the cleaning actions from there. That way you can be sure that your delete-actions are called on every delete-action on any node. Obviously you can add some conditions into your hook_nodeapi() to only invoke your modules in certain cases (node-types, user-roles, permissions and so on).
Well, it seems to me that you've got a setup where you don't want Editor Role users to delete things, really, except in certain extreme situations. Here's my suggestion:
1) Install Flag module. Create a 'To Be Deleted' flag that can only be assigned by Editor Role people.
2) I haven't looked into it, but I"m sure there's probably a rule or trigger/action combo which will unpublish the node when the 'To Be Deleted' flag is assigned to it. This will remove the node from casual view.
3) Then either set up some cron run activity (trigger/action or rule) to delete nodes with 'To Be Deleted' flag set on them, or have another user with higher permissions come in occasionally and delete out the flagged items.
This way you're not actually bypassing the permissions system, and yet things are still being removed from your site.
I got caught out of this for a while until I noticed the "actions_permissions" module, enable this and on the Permissions page you can provide access to specific actions on a role by role basis.
I don't have a good no-coding solution, and I'm not sure I would call this solution "great" - but one way might be to implement a simple module with a form_alter hook that removes the delete button from the node edit forms as they are built.
In general it seems like the role either has permission to delete nodes or not, and monkeying around like this is going to be less robust that you might like.
I'm building a Drupal based site that requires the communication of a node ID to a seperate web service. This web service handles the uploading of files to a seperate server (from the one Drupal is on).
This creates a problem where in if I create a new node, the Node ID is not generated until the form is submitted - meaning I can't attach the files until I save the node and open it back up to edit it. I'd like to remove that step.
Is it possible to create a two step node creation process where the basics of the node are submitted and saved, and then the form re-directs to step two where I can attach the files?
I'd also consider an AJAX enabled node submission form - but that seems to add even more complexity to the situation.
Any advice, examples will be appreciated!
you could do this with a multi-step form. see http://pingv.com/blog/ben-jeavons/2009/multi-step-forms-drupal-6-using-variable-functions for the canonical way to do this (besides the code, also check the comments).
you could also do it by adding a second submit handler to the form. the first, default one (node_form_submit) saves your node (including the attached file) the standard Drupal way. the second handler could upload the file to the separate server, do upload error checking, delete the file from the Drupal DB, etc. you can add an additional submit handler to a Drupal 6 form by adding it to the form's #submit property, either in the form definition or via hook_form_alter / hook_form_FORM_ID_alter.
Depending on what exactly you want to do, you might use hook_nodeapi on its 'insert' operation. It is fired after successful node creation, so the node object will contain the newly assigned nid there already.
NOTE: The wording of the API documentation is a bit ambiguous concerning the 'insert' and 'update' operations:
"insert": The node is being created
(inserted in the database).
This sounds like it is right in the middle of the process, whereas the node has already been created at this point.
I guess the node_save function can help you.
I ran into exactly this same issue and did it the wrong way. I added the hook myself.
http://drupal.org/node/313389