Permission to only Edit Pages (not books) for Selected Users

[mgmwhite]

Attempted Debugging

• [X] I have read the debugging page

Searched GitHub Issues

• [X] I have searched GitHub for the issue.

Describe the Scenario

Hi all, is it somehow possible to enable a group of users to create and edit pages/chapters but not the containig book itself without having to micromanage every new page that gets created?

So basically have group "Admins" create new books, that group "editors" are only allowed to fill with content and a group "viewers" that can only read the content.

I tried different setups but either the Editors could edit both pages/chapters and books or neither of them. Would be great to know if this is somehow achievable.

Thanks!

PS: Same thing goes for being able to create and edit books but not the containig shelf, so one level "higher". Could not figure out how to do that either.

Exact BookStack Version

v24.02

Log Content

No response

Hosting Environment

.

[ssddanbrown]

Hi @mgmwhite, You can do this via role permissions, since you can manage those per-content type, but as soon as you start applying permissions to specific items things can become more micro-managey for what you want, since permissions will cascade (from books and chapters).

[mgmwhite]

Hi @ssddanbrown thanks for replying! I tried a few different settings, but none of them really met the requirement. I think to simply map the process, there would need to be an additional boolean field in the book permissions, maybe called "Update Content" or something like that. If this is set, the user should only be able to edit the content of a book, but not the book itself. This would be great, for example, to allow individual users to use books to publish stuff without "jeopardising" the established book infrastructure.
What do you think about this?

[ssddanbrown]

@mgmwhite I can see how that would help, and why you might want that option.

Personally though I don't want to add additional complexity to the permission system so I'd not be keen to add this without significant demand, of which we have not observed so far.

Another potential option for this could be via the request in #4832, for roles to become owners. There's also some prior discussion related to that in #3964.