Is it possible to associate a workflow Approval Group with a specific User Group? For example, let's say I have a User Group called 'Staff', and I want it so that any modifications to content that users in that group make must be approved by users in a specific User Group.
It seems that the default Plumber setup is to create Groups that exist only within Plumber; the group can't be inherited from the User Groups.
If this isn't something that Plumber can do, then would you have any thought on how best to approach it?
Thought it better to reply here rather than to your email.
The groups model for Plumber is intentional separate from Umbraco's user groups. I wanted to ensure that making changes to one didn't unintentionally impact on the other, and also not have to consider changes to Umbraco's user groups when adding/changing/removing Plumber features. Plumber adds permissions for workflow approval groups, Umbraco continues to manage user groups.
That said, while it's not possible at the moment, it might make for an interesting feature to add - I'd see it as an additional workflow mode. Current modes are explicit (workflow set on the node), inherited and content-type, so user-group based would be a useful addition. Not sure how it would work, but nothing's impossible.
It would though add a tighter coupling to Umbraco's user groups, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.
Can't see that it would be something I'd add to the Umb7 version, probably would need to be Umb8 only since it's a fairly substantial task.
As for how to manage your scenario at the moment, I don't think Plumber makes it possible, unless the Staff group members are the only users editing particular content - set them as the only users with editing access to those nodes, then set the required workflow. If they can edit anything, but those changes must go through a particular workflow, for now at least, I think you're out of luck.
Thank you for getting back, I really appreciate it.
That said, while it's not possible at the moment, it might make for an interesting feature to add
No problem - I've actually managed to get our client to simplify their workflow requirements, so the user group approach has been put on hold. We will eventually be migrating their installation to v8, so maybe by the time we've done that, Plumber will have the option to hook up a user group to a workflow! I'm not sure how you'd do it, but is there a way of gauging interest in a potential new feature from the community so you can tell whether or not it'd be worthwhile?
I just wanted to put in a vote for this feature. In an organization with a lot of users and a lot of groups, it will become tedious to add them in two different places where the groups are identical.
I think I can make this work relatively easily in v8 - if a workflow group has an option to assign an existing Umbraco group, I could use that reference to fetch the users from Umbraco rather than my custom tables...
Will have a look into what's involved, can certainly see the value in making this an option
Linking a User Group to a Workflow Approval Group
Hi,
Is it possible to associate a workflow Approval Group with a specific User Group? For example, let's say I have a User Group called 'Staff', and I want it so that any modifications to content that users in that group make must be approved by users in a specific User Group.
It seems that the default Plumber setup is to create Groups that exist only within Plumber; the group can't be inherited from the User Groups.
If this isn't something that Plumber can do, then would you have any thought on how best to approach it?
Thanks,
Leo
Hi Leo
Thought it better to reply here rather than to your email.
The groups model for Plumber is intentional separate from Umbraco's user groups. I wanted to ensure that making changes to one didn't unintentionally impact on the other, and also not have to consider changes to Umbraco's user groups when adding/changing/removing Plumber features. Plumber adds permissions for workflow approval groups, Umbraco continues to manage user groups.
That said, while it's not possible at the moment, it might make for an interesting feature to add - I'd see it as an additional workflow mode. Current modes are explicit (workflow set on the node), inherited and content-type, so user-group based would be a useful addition. Not sure how it would work, but nothing's impossible.
It would though add a tighter coupling to Umbraco's user groups, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.
Can't see that it would be something I'd add to the Umb7 version, probably would need to be Umb8 only since it's a fairly substantial task.
As for how to manage your scenario at the moment, I don't think Plumber makes it possible, unless the Staff group members are the only users editing particular content - set them as the only users with editing access to those nodes, then set the required workflow. If they can edit anything, but those changes must go through a particular workflow, for now at least, I think you're out of luck.
Hi Nathan,
Thank you for getting back, I really appreciate it.
No problem - I've actually managed to get our client to simplify their workflow requirements, so the user group approach has been put on hold. We will eventually be migrating their installation to v8, so maybe by the time we've done that, Plumber will have the option to hook up a user group to a workflow! I'm not sure how you'd do it, but is there a way of gauging interest in a potential new feature from the community so you can tell whether or not it'd be worthwhile?
Thanks again and best wishes,
Leo
@Nathan Woulfe, Currently using Umbraco 8 with Plumber. Would love to know if/when this feature would be available!!
I just wanted to put in a vote for this feature. In an organization with a lot of users and a lot of groups, it will become tedious to add them in two different places where the groups are identical.
I think I can make this work relatively easily in v8 - if a workflow group has an option to assign an existing Umbraco group, I could use that reference to fetch the users from Umbraco rather than my custom tables...
Will have a look into what's involved, can certainly see the value in making this an option
is working on a reply...