337
Private issues
Hi,
I think it would be great if you implement private issues in redMine.
This is an issue that is viewable only if you have the permission to view private issues and for example the end client
will not see the issues in the company...
If it is possible now in redMine, please tell me how to do it. I don't see a way now...
Thanks!
Regards,
Nikolay
0
Mon Apr 30 15:14:00 +0200 2007
Tue Feb 23 18:03:09 +0100 2010
First of all, Redmine is a great product. I liked the workflow feature and I see enough potential to be customized for purposes other than project management. Only if I could make all issues visible only to certain roles, and for others only their issues are visible.
In my opinion, it would be great if this feature can be enabled as part of permissions - something like "View All Tickets" could be a permission which is set to checked by default. If we uncheck, members with that role can see only their ticket.
That also means, they will not be able to see others issues, activities, calendar, issue summary etc.
I am not sure how difficult the implementation is. I am new to Ruby and trying to figure out how permissions work in Redmine (some hash table?)
The other "issue" is the name "issue". I would have preferred some neutral terms like "ticket".
Anyway, I edited en.yml and changed the word issue to ticket.
An idea similar to private issues is, I think, a private task list - so not to clutter "official" trackers.
Each user could be given a simple tracker for his daily tasks/duties.
Heh, I will soon be leaving the company I am currently employed at and unfortunately the main drive to install redMine will leave with me. Therefore I can't really give much more information.
Off the top of my head this sounds like it is more complex than a simple user based internal/external separation.
Cheers
RJ
Hi,
another thought: when creating an issue and assign it to somebody, there has to be a possibility to make it private for that user, so only he can see it (like the boss assigns tasks for project managers, but the developers are not allowed to see this tasks).
I thinking of a tree, in which the lower level users don't see the issues of higher level users.
Thanks,
Nikolay
Got it, but will it works like the patch Jeffrey proposed?
Because I think the internal/external feature is a whole new solution for redMine, because external users are commonly clients in Trouble Ticketing sistem. Jeffrey made some filtering on assignment of issues to internal/external users etc...
This separation of the users in redMine will make it not only project management and issue tracking, but and trouble ticketing system which on its side is great :)
Thanks,
Nikolay
It's just to allow a same role to be used for internal and external (eg. client) users, as requested by Jeffrey Jones.
That role could have the "View private issues" permissions, but you can prevent clients who have this role to view private issue by checking "No private issue" on their account.
Hi,
I think this is the solution, Jean-Philippe. :)
There is something I don't understand indeed...
What is the meaning of the "No private issues"?
If a user has "View private issues" or just "Private issues" in the role "Clients" for example, maybe he should not be allowed to see and create them... Or I missed something?
Thanks,
Nikolay
Hi,
> I almost convinced my bosses to use redMine in a presentation yeasterday :)
I'm very proud of it :-) Thanks
I understand your need. It's different from internal/external issues.
Instead of adding one more flag on issues, maybe I could implement a common solution:
* just a "Private" flag on issues
* a new permission "View private issues" at role level
* a "No private issue" flag on user accounts
If a user has a role with "View private issues" permission, he will see private issues on the corresponding project.
If a user has the "No private issue" flag checked on his account (not modifiable by himself of course), he won't see any private issue and won't be able to create private issues. It could be set for clients for example.
What do you think ?
Hello,
I almost convinced my bosses to use redMine in a presentation yeasterday :)
The issue that was on the table with it was exactly these private issues.
The patch proposed by Jeffrey Jones is about internal/external users.
I'm asking now for the ability when reporting issue to make it private for the user who reported it. There has to be a permission for this feature - View others private issues.
redMine is a great innovative tool, and we want to use it as a project management solution, by posting to it not only developers tasks but the jobs of project managers. It suits our organization for now but, the lower levels of the hierarchy should not see the work of the higher level.
I hope you understand me :)
Thanks and regards,
Nikolay
A patch was proposed for this feature by Jeffrey Jones.
http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=10381&group_id=1850&atid=7162
I may integrate it in the future, so any comment is welcome.
I agree with Geordee - really great software you created there, Jean-Philippe. As you know we recently started using it for TYPO3 (http://forge.typo3.org).
Private issues are also one of the most important features we will need for TYPO3. We have a security team which takes care of any security issues. Currently we track them with Mantis. All security issues are submitted as private issues which only the security team can see.
I propose that a "private" flag can be set for a whole tracker. All issues for that tracker are not visible to the public (but probably to the team members). The question is, how we can give the security team access to all these trackers without having to add each team member to each project. The easiest - but not very clean -solution would be to let all security team members be administrators. But maybe there are alternatives?
I agree on that point: private issue (this may be called "security issues", too) is a must-have for redmine. Private trackers should be easy to get too.
Thanks for your contributions. Here is what I propose:
* a '_private_' flag on issues (so that the tracker won't be the only way to set an issue as private)
* a '_view private issues_' permission at role level
* an additional setting at account level to set the ability of the user to see private issues, with the following options:
* _never_: the user can never see any private issue
* _always_: the user can see any private issue
* _according to his role_: the user only see private issues on projects for which he has a role that is allowed to view private issues
Robert, you could use this option to enable security team users to view any private issues without having to give them a role on all projects.
A flag could also be added at tracker level so that an issue attached to a private tracker is automatically private.
A user should be able to view a private issue if he is its author or assignee, whatever his permissions are.
One more question: who should be allowed to create or set issues as private ?
For example, anyone could be allowed to create private issues but only specific role(s) could be allowed to set an existing issue as private.
What do you think ?
Hi,
Jean-Philippe, all your proposals are pretty enough I think.
Only that:
_Robert, you could use this option to enable security team users to view any private issues without having to give them a role on all projects._
I can't get the meaning. If a user is not assigned to a project with a particular role, he don't see any issues in this project (not public project), right?
Then, how he will see the private issues? Am I missing something?
Regards,
Nikolay
Nikolay, I was speaking about _public_ projects (which is the case of Robert I think).
Of course, if a project is private, only its members can see it.
Great! I think it's a really good start.
Regards,
Nikolay
It sounds good to me, too.
Hi Jean-Philippe,
great to hear that you want to work on that feature. In my opinion all of your proposals make sense and they would certainly satisfy our demands.
_One more question: who should be allowed to create or set issues as private ?_
_For example, anyone could be allowed to create private issues but only specific role(s) could be allowed to set an existing issue as private._
In our case anybody should be able to create private issues and it would be okay if anyone would be allowed to set an existing issue as private. However, I could understand if someone needs the feature that only certain people are allowed to mark existing issues as private. Maybe that shouldn't be an extra feature but rather be determined from the rights someone has to edit a whole issue.
Best,
robert
I'd just like to add my voice to this one too. I will quickly out line our use-case, which i think is covered by the above description that JPL described above.
I have a team which work on a project. There are many non-team members which create new issues (features, bugs, etc). I would like to have the non-team members able to create items, and then the team "update" the items (with notes) which are not viewable by the non-team members.
It would be helpful to have an option to make "updates" private by default.
Thanks
This could be accomplished by adding a "private" flag to journal entries.
Sounds good to me.
Private bugs are also an issue for us, however our use case is I believe slightly different - I'll put it here in case it's a helpful. As I understand it, what you are proposing above is the ability to restrict certain issues to effectively "superusers" - in case they are sensitive.
Our use case is if we use redmine to track bugs in a product, we would want company Foo to raise bugs and also company Bar to raise bugs in the same project - however whilst Foo could see all bugs Foo had raised, we would _not_ want them to see bugs that Bar had raised (and vice versa). This seems very similar to the proposed solution, but rather than private/not-private it requires the ability to set them private/not-private at a company wide level (to be honest, even if it was limited to "person from Foo who raised the bug and all developers" that'd probably be sufficient).
Thanks - redmine looks very interesting!
Adrian, your request concern another matter: user-groups. There's a bunch of feature request about that, like #1018. Once this feature will be implemented, another improvement will be to enable users from a certain group to view restricted/private/security trackers.
Anoter Idea:
Why not let us use Custom Keywords for that.
Let us specify something like "Use this Keyword as permission"...
It this Keyword-Flag is checked, I can set all things from above like
<pre>
* just a "Private" flag on issues
* a new permission "View private issues" at role level
* a "No private issue" flag on user accounts
</pre>
for those Keywords and so, I am much more flexible...
I can name Keywords: Internal, externals Developer, High security team, ....
I just imagine the mess with keywords: this issue went just private. Imagine all the other issue that become private without warning. Sound funny :)
YES, PLEASE! There is a need for some way to hide certain issues from the customer. We use Redmine for tracking our software developemnt project. Not all issues are for the customer to be seen.
Simply make a checkbox "Private" which will make the issue invisible for customers.
I sort of like the idea of keywords. Yes there is some complexity there, but its generality just seems naturally appealing to me. More so than coding a hodge-podge of private/public, personal/non-personal, internal/external, financial/non-financial, and so on.
I can also think other levels of access. For instance, in our shop the developers would never want to prevent the user from seeing the internal of what we do, they generally don't want to. It would be nice to be able to hide developer tickets from non-technical staff by default, but allow them to choose to see them if the want.
We are using Redmine for internal purposes. We would like to see "Private tickets" as Nikolay Solakov described them: a user should be able to see only its own reported tickets.
P.S. I opened issue #1491 asking same thing than I found this. Sorry.
> P.S. I opened issue #1491 asking same thing than I found this. Sorry.
Duplication relation marked, #1491 closed. Thank you for pointing it out.
I dont think all the different posters on this page are talking about compatible use cases (or at least the proposal being proposed by Jean-Philippe Lang will solve some users problems but not others). One of the blissful things about Redmine is that so far it achieves so much out of the box with a 'lightness of being' - it is not weighed down by hundreds of modes, options and checkboxes. What I am worried will happen here is that this proposal will be implemented, but will only silence 50% of the requests so then further layers of control get put on top until you end up with a Lotus Notes-esque multi layered security model nobody can understand...
Here are some real life scenarios as far as I can tell from the discussion:
h2. A - Customer vs Customer
Acme CAD systems wants to collect bug reports from clients Boeing and Airbus, but clients should not be able to see each others issues.
h2. B - Internal vs External
Acme Banking Systems wants to let the customers have access to file and track issues but dont want them to see issues found by the QA/QC team during development.
h2. C - Internal vs Internal
Apple computer want the general development team to work on outstanding issues but keep new features tightly controlled and visible to key developers only.
The proposed solution (private flag and associated permissions) is too blunt to solve all these needs - it marks some issues as private and then grants some roles the ability to see private issues. This will solve the goal of B above (since internal roles will be senior to external roles) but will be a problem for A and C because they are peer to peer type access control problems (although clearly there are workarounds).
Perhaps instead we could implement user groups (as requested elsewhere... ) as collections of users. Allow issues to have project visibility or group visibility (perhaps have a group field and if null visibility is default). Neatly partitions access within the members of a project and separately from role. Works great where multiple clients exist in the same project ect. Completely backwards compatible.
I think the group visibility is great.
But just keep in mind that when a new bug/feature is raised, "someone" need to setup the visibility for each group; this could be a long uninteresting work, and shall be reserved to some people (Project Leader for example) ... So depending on the cases you've presented above, default visibility should be automatically setup.
For example,
- when Boeing open an issue, everyone can see within ACME (or some groups only), excepts the one registered as Airbus.
- when an issue is open internally, everyone can see it within ACME (or some groups only), and customers can not see them.
To summarize, a configuration panel shall exist per group to determine the default visibility to set up to the other groups in case one member of a group raises an issue.
Good points. To properly suggest an answer I need to solicit feedback on another question first. If Groups get implemented should they be exclsuive or not (ie can I belong to multiple groups?).
If groups are exclusive they are fairly easy to implement - when adding members to a project there would need to be an additional column group. A project member could be assigned to 0 or 1 groups. Alternatively groups could be a global attribute (same across all projects) in which case users would be assigned to a group from the user admin screen.
Either way you could set a project level flag: Default Issue Visibility: <Group | Project>
Then all new issues created by anyone would default to the group that person was a member of if:
# That user was in a group (group not null)
# That project had a default visibility of Group
On the other hand if Groups were implemented in a more flexible way where any user could be a member of any number of groups then it gets harder because the above logic would not work. I am having difficulty thinking of a fooproof mechanism in that scenario.
Ewan Makepeace wrote:
> If Groups get implemented should they be exclsuive or not (ie can I belong to multiple groups?).
From my POV, exclusive groups are just useless: they could be replaced by a system of credential copy. Of course, non-exclusive groups are far harder to implement, since we have to define rules of precedence between groups rights, but that's the only way to get powerfull right management.
Am I right in assuming that the original patch by Jeffrey Jones from 2007-04-30 no longer works? It seems the source code has changed quite a bit since then, the patch won't apply anymore.
Did anyone ever update it? It would make a nice stopgap until private tickets in 0.8 are available...
Sorry for noise in your mbox but, please, any update about this topic?
Jean-Philippe Lang wrote:
> Thanks for your contributions. Here is what I propose:
>
> * a '_private_' flag on issues (so that the tracker won't be the only way to set an issue as private)
> * a '_view private issues_' permission at role level
> * an additional setting at account level to set the ability of the user to see private issues, with the following options:
>
> * _never_: the user can never see any private issue
> * _always_: the user can see any private issue
> * _according to his role_: the user only see private issues on projects for which he has a role that is allowed to view private issues
>
> Robert, you could use this option to enable security team users to view any private issues without having to give them a role on all projects.
>
> A flag could also be added at tracker level so that an issue attached to a private tracker is automatically private.
> A user should be able to view a private issue if he is its author or assignee, whatever his permissions are.
>
> One more question: who should be allowed to create or set issues as private ?
> For example, anyone could be allowed to create private issues but only specific role(s) could be allowed to set an existing issue as private.
>
> What do you think ?
Hi!
I have compared openSource systems like SourceForge (Savanah, GForge, RedMine) and I think that Redmine is the best among them. As to me I am necessary to have the private issues, I have made a patch for 0.8.0-release(30/12/2008). I have included two kinds of permissions on my decision:
# Add private issues permission
# View private issues permission
These permissions can be added in any of roles under Redmine.
P.S. I am a newbe in Ruby and Ruby on Rails.
Paul Zubarev wrote:
> As to me I am necessary to have the private issues, I have made a patch for 0.8.0-release(30/12/2008).
Thank you for the patch. I've only had a change to read the code but I have a couple of questions:
# Are there unit and functional tests to support the patch? With a feature like this, I'd trust the code more if there were tests to make sure the issues were displayed properly.
# Does this patch affect the Activity page also? If a user doesn't have permission to see an issue, then they shouldn't see any updates on their Activity page
# Similar to above, does this patch affect the Atom feeds?
Eric Davis wrote:
> Thank you for the patch. I've only had a change to read the code but I have a couple of questions:
>
> # Are there unit and functional tests to support the patch? With a feature like this, I'd trust the code more if there were tests to make sure the issues were displayed properly.
> # Does this patch affect the Activity page also? If a user doesn't have permission to see an issue, then they shouldn't see any updates on their Activity page
> # Similar to above, does this patch affect the Atom feeds?
You are absolutely right. I will change a patch and I will improve my errors within the next few days.
Eric Davis wrote:
> # Are there unit and functional tests to support the patch? With a feature like this, I'd trust the code more if there were tests to make sure the issues were displayed properly.
> # Does this patch affect the Activity page also? If a user doesn't have permission to see an issue, then they shouldn't see any updates on their Activity page
> # Similar to above, does this patch affect the Atom feeds?
I have made the new version of a patch with support private issues in Activity page and Atom feeds.
This patch include unit and functional tests for private issues.
> I have made the new version of a patch with support private issues in Activity page and Atom feeds.
> This patch include unit and functional tests for private issues.
I tried this patch on the current svn trunk (0.8.0.devel.2261).
Patching lib/redmine.rb failed, apparently in current trunk the :destroy_attachment was removed from line 38.
I attached a working patch file for redmine-0.8.0/lib/redmine.rb
Hi everybody,
Redmine is a very great app ! Thanks to everyone you have help to have this project so good.
We want to move from Mantis to Redmine, but there is this missing feature that make us some problems.
I would like to know if Redmine will permit to make visible a ticket only for some specified users (or role) ?
We have 3 kind of roles : client, freelance, admins(us)
When a client ask us a feature, we create a ticket only visible between us and the freelance.
After the negociation price with the freelance, we create a ticket only visible between us and the client.
Do you think this will be possible in Redmine ?
Thanks
Wessel Louwris wrote:
> > I have made the new version of a patch with support private issues in Activity page and Atom feeds.
> > This patch include unit and functional tests for private issues.
>
btw: the patch works great and was just what we needed. Hope it get's implemented in someway in the trunk sometime. Thanks!
Guillaume Lecanu wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> Redmine is a very great app ! Thanks to everyone you have help to have this project so good.
> We want to move from Mantis to Redmine, but there is this missing feature that make us some problems.
>
> I would like to know if Redmine will permit to make visible a ticket only for some specified users (or role) ?
>
> We have 3 kind of roles : client, freelance, admins(us)
>
> When a client ask us a feature, we create a ticket only visible between us and the freelance.
> After the negociation price with the freelance, we create a ticket only visible between us and the client.
>
> Do you think this will be possible in Redmine ?
>
> Thanks
The redmine-private_issues.v.0.1.patch from Paul Zubarev in this thread provides a 'Add private issues' and 'View private issues' right which you could assign to roles. But that would not be sufficient in your situation it seems, since you have 2 kinds of private.
Wessel Louwris wrote:
> The redmine-private_issues.v.0.1.patch from Paul Zubarev in this thread provides a 'Add private issues' and 'View private issues' right which you could assign to roles. But that would not be sufficient in your situation it seems, since you have 2 kinds of private.
Thanks for your help Wessel Louwris.
Do you know if there is another way where I could do this negociation in private but into Redmine ?
I have read there is a new rights managements for the Wiki, or may be by creating a Forum with the good rights perms ?
I have checked this patch on http://osll.spb.ru and see that it contains a little bug. This bug is described on http://osll.spb.ru/issues/show/3 . I will fix it soon.
I have a question: how patch can be added in redmine trunk?
This patch fixes my mistake in version 0.1 (:
You shoud patch the file redmine/app/controllers/projects_controller.rb that has been patched early by redmine-private_issues.v.0.1.patch
It's very necessary feature!
* I tried the patch and took an error then user have no permissions to view private issues (http://localhost:3000/projects/show/test2):
@SQLite3::SQLException: no such column: false: SELECT count(DISTINCT "issues".id) AS count_all, tracker_id AS tracker_id FROM "issues" LEFT OUTER JOIN "projects" ON "projects".id = "issues".project_id LEFT OUTER JOIN "issue_statuses" ON "issue_statuses".id = "issues".status_id LEFT OUTER JOIN "trackers" ON "trackers".id = "issues".tracker_id WHERE (((projects.id = 2 OR projects.parent_id = 2) AND issues.private = false) AND issue_statuses.is_closed='f') AND (projects.status=1 AND (projects.is_public = 't' or projects.id IN (1,2))) GROUP BY tracker_id@
Problem has gone when I comment single line <pre># issue_cond += " AND #{Issue.table_name}.private = false"</pre> in app/controllers/projects_controller.rb
* I think owner must able to see own tasks.
In addition: I'm using sqlite3 db.
Are you have @private@ field in @issues@ table in your database? Maybe you have forgotten execute @rake db:migrate RAILS_ENV="your_environment"@.
I have this one. I found some about this problem http://snippets.dzone.com/posts/show/2086.
In addition:
* It will be useful to able set default state (private or not) for new issue for any project separately.
# I have fix problem with sqlite3.
# If user adds private issue, he will be able to browse his issue even if he does not have view_private_issue permission.
This patch for 0.8-stable svn branch.
I think it should be possible for a given ticket to define a set of *user* or *user group* which can access to this ticket. Set to _All_ by default.
A role permission should be also added : _Access to all ticket_. It permits to bypass the access rights. Only used for project admin.
Why not add this feature the same way as you did with watchers. It should simply be possible to define groups.
Adding Groups for watchers would be a nice feature too...
See also #2653
When I test http://www.redmine.org/attachments/1473/private_issues.v.0.2.patch with redmine 8.1, I can't see project pages, this exception is launched:
Mysql::Error: #42S22Unknown column 'issues.private' in 'where clause': SELECT count(DISTINCT `issues`.id) AS count_all, tracker_id AS tracker_id FROM `issues` LEFT OUTER JOIN `projects` ON `projects`.id = `issues`.project_id LEFT OUTER JOIN `issue_statuses` ON `issue_statuses`.id = `issues`.status_id LEFT OUTER JOIN `trackers` ON `trackers`.id = `issues`.tracker_id WHERE (((projects.id = 9 OR projects.parent_id = 9)) AND issue_statuses.is_closed=0 AND issues.private=1) AND (projects.status=1) GROUP BY tracker_id
/opt/gems-1.8.6/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/abstract_adapter.rb:147:in `log'
Should #48 patch be added to the 0.2 patch ?
There is a migration in the patch, so do a rake db:migrate as well.
/T
So I applied the 'private_issues.v.0.2.patch' patch to my development version of the 0.8.3 and I noticed something...
You still get emails if you belong to the project and have your preferences set to send emails for all projects you're involved in, regardless of your permissions.
This doesn't seem right...
Hi,
We would like apply this patch in trunk, is there any notice about ?
Regards,
I am also looking to apply this patch asap. I have been holding off since it looks like it will be merged with the trunk pretty soon. Is there any update on that?
Thanks,
justin
My company is also in need of a way to hide issues based on a specific criteria. As Ewan points out, many of the suggested solutions are to solve a specific use case, leaving many other desired use cases unsolved. A more generalized approach is necessary.
I propose that a new feature be implemented that allows users to define their own permissions for viewing tickets. This feature would be analogous to the filter on the /issues page (in fact, the interface would be nearly identical). The admin would be able to define a new permission filter based on the same set of criteria available in the issue filters. For example, the admin may select the criteria:
<pre>
Assigned to is <<me>>
Tracker is Bug
Target version is [1.0]
</pre>
The admin can save this "permission filter" and assign it to a specific role. Like normal issue filters, this would work on custom fields. So you could add a "private" custom field that is binary, if all you need is private vs. non-private permissions. I would imagine that custom fields in the permission filter would have to be limited to custom fields that are marked "For all projects" and "Used as filter".
h2. The Cons
* The user will be affected by the current limitations that are in the issues filter. For example, what if I want to filter for all tickets that are priority "Normal" AND priority "High". (Note: I think this can easily be addressed by making improvements to the filtering.)
h2. The Pros
* The approach is very flexible, and can be used to solve all use cases described so far.
* Much more complex permission systems can be created using this solution.
* It could be made possible to assign a permission filter to a user, not just a role.
* I am not familiar with the Redmine source (or Ruby for that matter), but it seems as though much of the code for this proposed feature is already written. The developer would be adapting existing code that has already been heavily tested.
Let me know if there are any more pros/cons that I'm missing.
In my eyes, it is important to finally have this feature in redmine. I don´t understand why the patch of Paul is not already integrated into the core as a first step. Maybe later there is time for the more generic solution of Jose.
Paul Zubarev wrote:
> # I have fix problem with sqlite3.
> # If user adds private issue, he will be able to browse his issue even if he does not have view_private_issue permission.
>
> This patch for 0.8-stable svn branch.
With this patch (in 0.8-stable) the atom feed from the issues tab still displays the private issues the users shouldn't be alllowed to see according to the permissions set on the roles.
Any tips on where I should start to debug this problem?
Also in the project overview it also shows the number of current private issues to the user.
Is this intended?
Tiago Queirós wrote:
> Paul Zubarev wrote:
> > # I have fix problem with sqlite3.
> > # If user adds private issue, he will be able to browse his issue even if he does not have view_private_issue permission.
> >
> > This patch for 0.8-stable svn branch.
>
> With this patch (in 0.8-stable) the atom feed from the issues tab still displays the private issues the users shouldn't be alllowed to see according to the permissions set on the roles.
> Any tips on where I should start to debug this problem?
>
> Also in the project overview it also shows the number of current private issues to the user.
> Is this intended?
I get the same behaviour in the export to CSV and PDF features of the Issues Module.
It exports everything, including the private issues.
Shaun Gilroy wrote:
> ...
> You still get emails if you belong to the project and have your preferences set to send emails for all projects you're involved in, regardless of your permissions.
>
> This doesn't seem right...
I can confirm that it does really occurs. I have this patch applied to Redmine 0.8.2 and people that don't have permission to see private tickets are receiving emails from private tickets changes and comments if they mark to "send emails for all projects you're involved in".
I would love to help you, but I'm a noob in rails.. All I can do is report that! :)
Private tickets is a really great and useful feature and I think the way this patch implements it is a good way, That could be better in the future.
With this email issue and the Atom issue resolved, I think its mature enough to be integrated with Redmine trunk and come in the first 0.9 stable release.
Thanks for Paul for the patch and all others for the feedback and ideas!
I have patched redmine-private_issues.v.0.1.fix.patch. Following is private_issues patch's some defects:
* The private issue's Assigned member should be able to view the private issues.
* Watchers should also have permission to view tasks.
* Recommended to increase the csv & PDF export's access control function.
I am using a test installation of 0.8.5. I am a bit confused about the various comments here.
Is there a better version of the private issues being worked on for 0.9, or is it going to be
the patch being integrated into the trunk.
Also, which file should I use for applying the patch as there are several on this page. Sorry
for any novice comments
Redmine Fan wrote:
> I am using a test installation of 0.8.5. I am a bit confused about the various comments here.
> Is there a better version of the private issues being worked on for 0.9, or is it going to be
> the patch being integrated into the trunk.
This patch will be integrated into the trunk as soon as it's mature enough. As I can see, we still have some problems in this feature. Below is a list of current problems (sorry if i forget something):
* "People that don't have permission to see private tickets are receiving emails from private tickets changes and comments if they mark to "send emails for all projects you're involved in"". (Shaun Gilroy and Me)
* "The atom feed from the issues tab still displays the private issues the users shouldn't be alllowed to see according to the permissions set on the roles." (Thiago Queiróz)
* "I get the same behaviour in the export to CSV and PDF features of the Issues Module." (Thiago Queiróz)
* "The private issue's Assigned member should be able to view the private issues." (li wei)
* "Watchers should also have permission to view tasks." (li wei)
>
> Also, which file should I use for applying the patch as there are several on this page. Sorry
> for any novice comments.
The file is @private_issues.v.0.2.patch@. I've applied here in Redmine 0.8.2 and everything is ok. (Except for the known issues above)
I hope someone could solve this minor issues and integrate this patch into trunk ASAP.
Thanks!
I tried to apply on Redmine 0.8.5 (current trunk) and i have a error when i want to see private issues
@NameError in Issues#show@
Showing app/views/issues/show.rhtml where line #1 raised:
undefined local variable or method `private' for #<Issue:0xb59008fc>
@Application Trace@
/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.3.4/lib/active_record/attribute_methods.rb:260:in `method_missing'
/home/redmine/app/models/issue.rb:271:in `visible?'
/home/redmine/app/views/issues/show.rhtml:1:in `_run_rhtml_app47views47issues47show46rhtml'
/home/redmine/app/controllers/issues_controller.rb:119:in `show'
/home/redmine/app/controllers/issues_controller.rb:118:in `show
What can i do?
Hi redmine-ers, pls anyone confirm when this feature is available for the trunk e.g. 9.0? This feature is really necessary ... thanks.
Ho Nguyen wrote:
> Hi redmine-ers, pls anyone confirm when this feature is available for the trunk e.g. 9.0? This feature is really necessary ... thanks.
Yes, approve request for this feature.
I think issue #2653 is better way to separate clients from each other than "Private issues". Private issues will involve some chaos to project management.
Stanislav German-Evtushenko wrote:
> I think issue #2653 is better way to separate clients from each other than "Private issues". Private issues will involve some chaos to project management.
I think they're not the same think. I my company, for example, it's not a internal/external user problem. We use private tickets to avoid all (even internal users) to see tickets that have private information.
If someone will use this to 'separate clients from each other', putting all internal tickets as private, I agree with Stanislav. It will be a big chaos.
I believe both solutions could be applied, couldn't they?
Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Stanislav German-Evtushenko wrote:
> > I think issue #2653 is better way to separate clients from each other than "Private issues". Private issues will involve some chaos to project management.
>
> I think they're not the same think. I my company, for example, it's not a internal/external user problem. We use private tickets to avoid all (even internal users) to see tickets that have private information.
>
> If someone will use this to 'separate clients from each other', putting all internal tickets as private, I agree with Stanislav. It will be a big chaos.
>
> I believe both solutions could be applied, couldn't they?
I think you right.
Another concept (or: a short summary of the above ideas) which hopefully covers all the use cases mentioned above + one case I recently heard of (from a friend to whom I recently recommended redmine). A non-software company has external users who should be able to view issues which were *explicitly* made available to them but no other issues (no project-wide rights, only per-issue viewing rights). *Security is a concern.*
I'm not familiar with redmine code.
There is some similarity to "multiple user assignment":http://www.redmine.org/issues/408, but this idea is related more to *data security/access control* than the workflow.
*1. Project-wide settings: Private Issues, Watchers and Editors*
** enable private issues (if disabled, no point in specifying Private Editors an issue in the project)
** are new issues _private_ by default?
** when security is a big concern: to prevent mistakenly revealing too much information to outsiders: all issues of this project are locked to _private_ (only _private_ issues allowed in the project *and its subprojects?*)
*2. Add permissions under "Issue tracking"*
** _View Private Issues_
** _Become a Watcher_ - Only project participants with this permission will appear in the UI control (list?) which allows to add Watchers to an issue. _Watchers_ of a given _private issue_ can see it listed or see its details although they have no _View Private Issues_ right. Implementing explicit permission to _Become a Watcher_ is not a must, but would add security (prevent mistakenly authorizing a third party to view a private issue).
** Implement the permissions of an _Editor_ in a similar fashion: _Edit Issues_ is already present, to be added: _Become an Editor of an Issue_, _Add Editors_, _Show Editors List_, _Delete Editors_
*3. Specifying access rights when creating/editing issues*
* Issues can be made _private_ or _visible to all participants_ (_public_) by the creator (or editor with relevant permissions)
* If the issue is made _private_, creator / editor of the issue selects users (or groups) as _Watchers_ and _Editors_ (UI controls only becoming visible when you check the _private_ checkbox, unless it's on by default)
*4. Hidden updates, especially for hiding attachments*
* When updating an issue, specify whether _Watchers_ of this issue can see the update (i.e. you want to upload a file not for _Watchers_' eyes. Could be useful if you want outside _Watchers_ to track progress of your work, but not access too much data (i.e. documents you create).
*5. Allow groups to be specified as _Watchers_ and _Editors_*
If all 5 of the above are implemented, then this should cover all the cases mentioned in this discussion (including Guillaume Lecanu's case with freelancers and clients). It would also remedy some but not all of the concerns of people who requested assign to multiple users. Still, Jose's idea is very appealing as well.
Sometimes you will want to
* *specify access rights project-wise*, like using a filter by the admin in Jose's idea or using few pre-determined access rights in the above idea.
* *specify access rights on a per-issue basis* (especially important when security is a concern and very little info should be made available to users automatically).
I think the per-issue aspect is something easier dealt with in the above case (although I'm not sure - not a redmine dev myself). It is of course also possible in Jose's permissions-like-filters idea. It could probably be implemented using the same 'engine' as the rest of permissions-like-filters, but the filters concerning individual issues should also have UI options in create/edit issue screens. The individual, per-issue filters should probably be hidden by default from the admin permissions-like-filters interface (there could be v. many of them)
What do you think?
in short:
* A project can have Private Issues enabled -> then the users can select if a given issue is private
* A project can have Private Issues forced -> then all issues are private
* Private Issues can be viewed/edited by users with _View Private Issues_ or _Edit Private Issues_ permissions. Other users can view/edit if they were added as a _Watcher_ / _Editor_ of the particular issue.
* Groups of users can be specified as _Watchers_ or _Editors_ of private issues.
* Hidden Updates to a private issue (and their attachments) would be hidden from the _Watchers_
Some projects will mostly use user or group permissions to control access, projects with tight security will force private issues and use explicit issue-level permissions to grant access (_Watchers_ and _Editors_ lists for issues)
Is there for now a workaround or simple solution to allow private issue setting for owner, assigned to and watchers resp. groups?
Similar to basecamp, simple checkbox.
We really need that.
thx & regards
This would be a great feature, also making Redmine more usable as a customer ticketing system.
We currently use OTRS for our supportdesk, but the interface and translation is incredible lacking.
The only two features that would be needed for us in this case are:
* Trivial: support of per-user signatures
* Important: private ticketing.
In this case, I can image creating a public project for "general" company wide support. I'd then setup an e-mailadres to point to this project, making all e-mail conversations private to the user.
This feature has to wait for some refactoring of the access control to tickets, that should occur for the next stable release.
Jean-Philippe Lang wrote:
> This feature has to wait for some refactoring of the access control to tickets, that should occur for the next stable release.
Would be great if this would then also make Feature #1554 (Private comments in tickets) possible.
Thanks for all your work!
Hello
I have a problem with privacy in Redmine.
I have the version 0.9 Stable. When trying to update private_issues.v.0.2.patch (23.4 KB) Paul Zubarev, 2009-02-01 01:01 gives me errors. Not find the routes.
Someone can help me? I need users can not see the information between them.
How do I install the PATCH?
I await your response.
A greeting
Hi Carlos,
Unfortunately that patch is against a pretty old version of redmine, as far as I can tell, and won't work against the current version. Unless your knowledge of ruby is pretty good, you'll need to wait until this feature is in a release, which isn't scheduled until version 1.0, due in about 4 months (http://www.redmine.org/projects/redmine/roadmap)
cheers
Ed