Feature #91504
open
Subpages of pages with access setting "extendToSubpages" should be able to override this settings
0%
Description
Quite a bit complicated to explain but I'll try:
Example Pagetree:
. ├── Page Level 1 A (Usergroups: A and B - ExtendToSubpages: true) │ ├── Subpage Level 2 A │ ├── Subpage Level 2 B (Usergroups: A, B and C - ExtendToSubpages: true) │ │ ├── Subpage Level 3 A │ │ └── Subpage Level 3 B │ └── Subpage Level 2 C └── Page Level 1 B (Usergroups: C - ExtendToSubpages: true)
I would expect that "Subpage Level 2 B" overrides the accessibility of "Page Level 1 A". So "Subpage Level 2 B" should be accessible by usergroups A,B and C. Usergroup C would need a deep link somewhere, as "Page Level 1 A" won't show up in menu.
The current behavior would be a "403 Page Not Found - Reason: Subsection was found and not accessible" if you access "Subpage Level 2 B" with usergroup C.
Updated by S P over 3 years ago
- Related to Bug #93540: It is not clear which options extendToSubpages in page properties aplies to added
Updated by Sybille Peters over 3 years ago
Can you clarify a bit more what you mean? What is current result and expected result?
Also, can you use something like "tree" in the console to format your pagetree visualization?
(You can edit the description of your issue, click on "Edit" on the top, then click on "Edit" next to "description")
Example:
. ├── 1a │ ├── 2a │ ├── 2b │ │ ├── 3a │ │ └── 3b │ └── 2c └── 1b
Updated by Alessandro Schmitz over 2 years ago
- Description updated (diff)
Sorry, for the late reply.
I updated the page tree example.
Not sure how to explain it better, but I'll try.
Wouldn't you expect that by setting different user groups on subpage 2B should override the user groups set on the parent page 1A, even if there is "extendToSubpages = 1"?
Current behavior: subpage 2B is only accessible by user group A and B, not C (using a deep link, in menu its hidden anyway because of 1A).
Expected behavior: page is also accessible by group C, as I override the fe_group field for the subpage 2B.
Is this any better to understand my expectation?
Should this be marked as bug?