upgrade procedure?
Hervé Cauwelier
I would like to migrate from LFC 1.0.2 to 1.0.5. There is a problem with
permissions but I would like to upgrade before reporting.
I couldn't find this in the documentation. Is there something to do with
buildout?
Thanks,
Herv�
Kai Diefenbach
I would like to migrate from LFC 1.0.2 to 1.0.5. There is a problem with permissions but I would like to upgrade before reporting.
I couldn't find this in the documentation. Is there something to do with buildout?
Hervé Cauwelier
> no there isn't anything to do with buildout.
>
> Actually there shouldn't be any migration.
In the end, I ran the 1.0.5 installer and moved my code and database
into the new structure.
> Please post the complete error.
I wonder why a newly subscribed user, or a user created through the LFC
management interface, without the is_staff flag, neither groups nor
roles, has access to the management interface.
The Reader role does not change this.
Herv�
Kai Diefenbach
I wonder why a newly subscribed user, or a user created through the LFC management interface, without the is_staff flag, neither groups nor roles, has access to the management interface.
Tel: +49 361 / 6636700
Fax: +49 361 / 6636702
Mail: kai.die...@iqpp.de
Web: http://www.iqpp.de
Skype: kai.diefenbach
Hervé Cauwelier
> Am 04.07.2011 um 17:19 schrieb Herv� Cauwelier:
>> I wonder why a newly subscribed user, or a user created through the
>> LFC management interface, without the is_staff flag, neither groups
>> nor roles, has access to the management interface.
>
> Because there could be local roles.
There are none.
> Anyway, the above mentioned users shouldn't see any objects, right?
They only see public objects, and they can make them private and public
again.
Here are the permissions of a typical object:
http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/4505/objectpermissions.jpg
And the permission of the portal, which is the parent object, since most
permissions are inherited:
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/2918/portalpermissions.jpg
I did not change them from the default. I'm even surprised that not all
permissions are inherited by default.
I tried the new "update permissions" utility but it changed nothing.
Herv�
Hervé Cauwelier
>> I wonder why a newly subscribed user, or a user created through the
>> LFC management interface, without the is_staff flag, neither groups
>> nor roles, has access to the management interface.
>
> Because there could be local roles.
>
> Anyway, the above mentioned users shouldn't see any objects, right?
And the same user with no role is allowed to see the utilities pages and
reindex objects. Though he cannot update permissions.
I made all permissions inherit from the portal and updated permissions.
The only difference is now that user can make objects private but he is
then not allowed to see them.
Herv�
Kai Diefenbach
On 04/07/2011 18:27, Kai Diefenbach wrote:
Am 04.07.2011 um 17:19 schrieb Hervé Cauwelier:
I wonder why a newly subscribed user, or a user created through the
LFC management interface, without the is_staff flag, neither groups
nor roles, has access to the management interface.
Because there could be local roles.
There are none.
They only see public objects, and they can make them private and public again.Anyway, the above mentioned users shouldn't see any objects, right?
Kai Diefenbach
2011/7/6 Hervé Cauwelier <herve.c...@free.fr>
On 04/07/2011 18:27, Kai Diefenbach wrote:
Am 04.07.2011 um 17:19 schrieb Hervé Cauwelier:
I wonder why a newly subscribed user, or a user created through the
LFC management interface, without the is_staff flag, neither groups
nor roles, has access to the management interface.
Because there could be local roles.
Anyway, the above mentioned users shouldn't see any objects, right?
And the same user with no role is allowed to see the utilities pages and reindex objects. Though he cannot update permissions.
Hervé Cauwelier
> But they could and users should be able to browse to them or just see
> them in the correct context within the manage interface. Hence all users
> should see the management interface.
It's sad to read that you consider registered visitors of a website
being able to access the back-office is a feature.
How do you disable it completely? I mean, not just removing the links
from the template but prevent the access. I thought it was the "Manage
content" permission, but it has no effect.
Maybe I ruined my installation somehow or we just don't try to solve the
same use case.
Herv�
Kai Diefenbach
On 06/07/2011 15:10, Kai Diefenbach wrote:But they could and users should be able to browse to them or just seethem in the correct context within the manage interface. Hence all usersshould see the management interface.
It's sad to read that you consider registered visitors of a website being able to access the back-office is a feature.
Hervé Cauwelier
> As I said before, he won't see more than on the front end. So what is
> the problem here in your opinion?
I don't find it sane that a visitor accesses the back-office. As you
have seen, there could be security flaws.
I think you have known Zope. Did you leave access to the ZMI to visitors?
Herv�