Bug 31184 - Add default permissions by patron category
Summary: Add default permissions by patron category
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 18787
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Patrons (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Bugs List
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2022-07-19 03:59 UTC by David Cook
Modified: 2024-04-23 23:19 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: ---
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description David Cook 2022-07-19 03:59:36 UTC
It could be useful to assign default permissions by patron category. (This was pointed out to me by a librarian who had similar functionality in a previous system.)

Alternatively, I suppose we could create "permission profiles" and assign those at patron creation time I suppose.

The idea being that you set up permissions for certain staff categories (like cataloguing or circulation) and then the staff automatically have their permissions set up and don't require you to manually check all the right checkboxes on a per-user basis. 

(I suppose role/group-based authorization would cut down even further on having to manually manage so many permissions...although this probably more of a problem for large libraries than small libraries...)
Comment 1 Katrin Fischer 2023-10-26 16:31:23 UTC
I would not want to have to maintain say circulation rules for multiple staff patron categories just because they have different permission profiles. I think having the permission profiles separate from patron categories would be much more useful.
Comment 2 Caroline Cyr La Rose 2024-04-23 21:16:02 UTC
So has this become a duplicate of bug 18787 then?
Comment 3 David Cook 2024-04-23 23:19:39 UTC
(In reply to Caroline Cyr La Rose from comment #2)
> So has this become a duplicate of bug 18787 then?

Looks like it!

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 18787 ***