Summary: | Optionally limit OPAC access to files attached to bib records via upload to only logged in users | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Koha | Reporter: | Cihan D <scdogan> |
Component: | OPAC | Assignee: | Bugs List <koha-bugs> |
Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | Testopia <testopia> |
Severity: | enhancement | ||
Priority: | P5 - low | CC: | 2178216511, andrew, dcook, martin.renvoize |
Version: | Main | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
See Also: | https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=38655 | ||
GIT URL: | Change sponsored?: | --- | |
Patch complexity: | --- | Documentation contact: | |
Documentation submission: | Text to go in the release notes: | ||
Version(s) released in: | Circulation function: | ||
Attachments: |
step1
step3 step6 |
Description
Cihan D
2018-09-26 12:34:52 UTC
Created attachment 79411 [details]
step3
Created attachment 79412 [details]
step6
I figured there would be a lot of duplicate bug reports for this enhancement request, but this is the only one I've seen... Comment on attachment 79411 [details]
step3
ffff
Renaming this a bit in hopes of getting more attention, as this does seem like a useful feature. It should be easy enough to add another column to uploaded_files. Something like "access_level" or "anonymous_access". The column will only make sense relative to the "public" column, which makes the additional column feel weird. So another idea would be to change the logic of the "public" column. NULL can be non-public, 1 can be public anonymous access, and 2 can be public authenticated access. Using integers instead of codes makes things less maintainable in the long-term though, as it's not clear at a glance what it means. I think this is a problem we've often ran into Koha. So... maybe "1" means public anonymous access, and "auth" means public authenticated access. Of course, that would require a DB schema change which changes "public" from tinyint(4) to something like char(4). And at that point maybe it's worth rewriting "1" to "anon" as well. -- Anyway, just some thoughts. I haven't had any customers asking for this, so it's not a priority for me, but that's how I'd do it. (In reply to David Cook from comment #6) > Anyway, just some thoughts. I haven't had any customers asking for this, so > it's not a priority for me, but that's how I'd do it. I say that... but I do hear people talk about this at times... People want ways to provide files and links to resources to only authenticated users. So there is a bigger (but related) feature gap than just what is described here. Still probably not a priority for me at this point, but it's always possible that I might revisit this one day. (He says optimistically.) |