Skip to main content
edited tags
Link
avpaderno
  • 97.9k
  • 15
  • 164
  • 284
edited tags
Link
Matoeil
  • 3.5k
  • 4
  • 31
  • 57
Notice removed Draw attention by UltraBob
Bounty Ended with Shawn Conn's answer chosen by UltraBob
corrected erroneous info
Source Link
UltraBob
  • 1.3k
  • 9
  • 37

I'm implementing search on a site using taxonomy access control with search api and search api solr. Reading the help page node access section, I see:

Needs details on how to build a View that respects access control.

… which is exactly what I need. How can I make a search view properly respect the taxonomy access control? I've got node access turned on in the index settings, and see the field available in the views filter, but looking at the values for this field in the solr index,so I see that every term gets node_access__allsome items with node_access_taxonomy_access_role:n set up, so apparentlyI could try to filter on this doesn't work with taxonomy access control, but it would not affect the facets.

I have

Additional access checks on result entities

turned on in query settings as a temporary measure, but that only filters the search results, and not any facets, etc.

One possible (though inefficient) solution seems like it could be to make two indexes and the have two displays in the search view, searching the right index depending on whether the user is authenticated or not, but I see no good way to limit the index based on the taxonomy term assigned.

It seems like my question may extendextends beyond the boundaries of the search view, and onto the index itself.

I'm implementing search on a site using taxonomy access control with search api and search api solr. Reading the help page node access section, I see:

Needs details on how to build a View that respects access control.

… which is exactly what I need. How can I make a search view properly respect the taxonomy access control? I've got node access turned on in the index settings, and see the field available in the views filter, but looking at the values for this field in the solr index, I see that every term gets node_access__all, so apparently this doesn't work with taxonomy access control.

I have

Additional access checks on result entities

turned on in query settings as a temporary measure, but that only filters the search results, and not any facets, etc.

One possible (though inefficient) solution seems like it could be to make two indexes and the have two displays in the search view, searching the right index depending on whether the user is authenticated or not, but I see no good way to limit the index based on the taxonomy term assigned.

It seems like my question may extend beyond the boundaries of the search view, and onto the index itself.

I'm implementing search on a site using taxonomy access control with search api and search api solr. Reading the help page node access section, I see:

Needs details on how to build a View that respects access control.

… which is exactly what I need. How can I make a search view properly respect the taxonomy access control? I've got node access turned on in the index settings, and see the field available in the views filter, so I see some items with node_access_taxonomy_access_role:n set up, I could try to filter on this, but it would not affect the facets.

I have

Additional access checks on result entities

turned on in query settings as a temporary measure, but that only filters the search results, and not any facets, etc.

One possible (though inefficient) solution seems like it could be to make two indexes and the have two displays in the search view, searching the right index depending on whether the user is authenticated or not, but I see no good way to limit the index based on the taxonomy term assigned.

It seems like my question extends beyond the boundaries of the search view, and onto the index itself.

added more information
Source Link
UltraBob
  • 1.3k
  • 9
  • 37
Loading
Tweeted twitter.com/StackDrupal/status/737464383622762496
Notice added Draw attention by UltraBob
Bounty Started worth 50 reputation by UltraBob
clarified
Source Link
UltraBob
  • 1.3k
  • 9
  • 37
Loading
Source Link
UltraBob
  • 1.3k
  • 9
  • 37
Loading