If you set a patron to a certain category then that patron should receive a set of permissions. If I'm saying that 'Joan Doe' has category 'staff' then it shouldn't be necessary to give him appropriate permissions. They should be filled according to category. This means that we will need to add default permission sets as system preferences for each defined patron category.
I think that this is a great idea. I've recently had a library ask if this is a possibility, so it would be great to see this get into Koha. I have other priorities at the moment, but I would be happy to test any patches and maybe write my own sometime in the future.
I have had a library ask for this same thing. The downside I see here is that libraries may start setting up a billion patron categories because of the granularity in permissions. Something to consider. joy (In reply to David Cook from comment #1) > I think that this is a great idea. > > I've recently had a library ask if this is a possibility, so it would be > great to see this get into Koha. > > I have other priorities at the moment, but I would be happy to test any > patches and maybe write my own sometime in the future.
I don't think that setting default permissions goes far enough -- this works when a new patron is added, but it doesn't help when permissions need to be added or changed across a group of existing patrons. Perhaps we need to introduce the concept of "role" that encompasses a group of permissions, which could be changed en-masse: borrower has a role patron category has a default role a role has many permissions a role may be based off a parent role (when the parent changes, all permissions not specified by the child will also change). This would allow some independence between patron categories and groups of permissions, while still allowing mass-insert and/or update of permissions as necessary.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 18787 ***