Give roles a description value

Here's a first stab. I had to change user_roles() to return $role rather than just the name, and haven't begun to track down all the places this broke things.

Also todo:
- The update hook adds descriptions to anonymous/authenticated, but this needs to be done in system.install too.
- We now need the ability to edit the autheticated/anonymous roles so that their descriptions can be changed.
- Probably some tests for user_roles().

Patch still applied against CVS HEAD.

Subscribing. This seems like a really good idea.

Applying usability tag.

"autheticated" is a typo.

I like this patch. Descriptions for roles would be handy. I'd note that we have a couple of varying ways of showing examples in core; this one uses the 'Example: "authenticated user"' rather than the 'Example: authenticated user' approach. In another patch, one of these days, we should really conform these example strings to a single standard.

Needs screenshot

@webchick: if theres no complaint im going to roll this new functionality into the UI redesign of the roles page #393406: "Edit" links on roles admin page are confusing to users: "Edit permissions" should be the primary link → .I dont link multiissue patches but they are very interrelated. Im going to mimic the content types page for the design and operation which leaves the ease of extension for contrib modules on the "edit link" and still lets us mitigate the permissions link on this page while adding your new functionality. ill have a patch for review on the other issue today or tomorrow morning.

@webchick: rolled your changes into the most recent patch on the issue above. also enabled editing of the "protected roles". your review and thoughts would be appreciated. the migration really simplified form validation and submission logic as well as creating a common UI that users already know from the content types page. im marking this issue as a duplicate but please revert if this isnt the best way to move forward.

Let's reopen this since the other issue wound up considering those changes to be out of scope.

There is some code in the other issue too though (in addition to the patch above). I assume it's pretty far out of date at this point though :)

The linked issue is one way to do it (although probably not for Drupal 8).

Drupal 8.3.0-alpha1 will be released the week of January 30, 2017, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted against the 8.4.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal 8 minor version schedule → and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 8 release cycle → .

The duplicate issue ( #1835668: Add description field to roles → ) pointed out that there's a contrib module which does this: https://www.drupal.org/project/role_help →

Drupal 8.4.0-alpha1 will be released the week of July 31, 2017, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted against the 8.5.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal 8 minor version schedule → and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 8 release cycle → .

But does it really make sense to require a contrib module for something essential like that?
Every field has a description field for a very good reason > inline documentation. So if roles don't become fieldable entity in the future, there should be clearly a help text, I think!

The last submitted patch, 1: user-role-descriptions-256287-1.patch, failed testing. View results →

Drupal 8.9.0-beta1 → was released on March 20, 2020. 8.9.x is the final, long-term support (LTS) minor release of Drupal 8, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted against the 9.1.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal 8 and 9 minor version schedule → and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 8 and 9 release cycles → .

Drupal 8.8.0-alpha1 will be released the week of October 14th, 2019, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted against the 8.9.x-dev branch. (Any changes to 8.9.x will also be committed to 9.0.x in preparation for Drupal 9’s release, but some changes like significant feature additions will be deferred to 9.1.x.). For more information see the Drupal 8 and 9 minor version schedule → and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 8 and 9 release cycles → .

Drupal 8.7.0-alpha1 will be released the week of March 11, 2019, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted against the 8.8.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal 8 minor version schedule → and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 8 release cycle → .

Drupal 8.6.0-alpha1 will be released the week of July 16, 2018, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted against the 8.7.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal 8 minor version schedule → and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 8 release cycle → .

Drupal 8.5.0-alpha1 will be released the week of January 17, 2018, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted against the 8.6.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal 8 minor version schedule → and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 8 release cycle → .

description field not present for roles

Reviving this issue since the referenced module role_help has not been ported and roles aren't fieldable.

Here is a patch to bring role descriptions into the interface. Patch is against 8.9.2, will update if necessary.

The last submitted patch, 24: 256287-role-description-24.patch, failed testing. View results →

1. +++ b/core/modules/user/config/install/user.role.anonymous.yml
   @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ status: true
   +description: ''
   
   +++ b/core/modules/user/config/install/user.role.authenticated.yml
   @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ status: true
   +description: ''
   

   We could probably provide these with descriptions, for completeness.

2. +++ b/core/modules/user/src/RoleForm.php
   @@ -12,6 +12,13 @@
   +  /**
   +   * Role.
   +   *
   +   * @var \Drupal\user\RoleInterface
   +   */
   +  protected $entity;
   

   Poor naming choice / comment description.

   Edit: Not needed at all. This is declared in the parent class.

3. +++ b/core/modules/user/src/RoleListBuilder.php
   @@ -64,6 +64,7 @@ public function getFormId() {
   +    $header['description'] = t('Description');
   

   Utilise $this->t within classes.

Tests need to be added for this issue.

Addressed all issues I outlined in #26.

Added tests for the description functions as well as the RoleListBuilder.

Just wondering if this new description field would be useable or somehow extendable to attaching specific images (media) to roles?

For example, if I wanted a different icon to represent different roles and to show the correct icon next to user names in a view (my specific use case).

@W01F I think you are looking for #775734: Role as fieldable entity → , this will only allow adding a single text field to roles.

Patch needs work as the tests failed entirely, also I don't think we can add methods to RoleInterface except in a major version jump as this is a backward compatibility break for anything that is currently implementing it.

I'm unsure why the tests failed like that, I'll give it another look.

This only adds new features and most cases where someone has overridden the roles entity they would be using this as a base already. But you are correct, this could be pushed to 10.0 in that case.

Test groups arent generated due to missing @group annotation in the new test added. Fixing that.

+++ b/core/modules/user/src/RoleListBuilder.php
@@ -72,6 +73,9 @@ public function buildHeader() {
+    $row['description'] = [
+      '#markup' => $entity->getDescription(),
+    ];

This is the only thing I don't like. I am not sure why it does not work without the markup.

Thank you for catching the group tag. : )

The last submitted patch, 32: 256287-32.patch, failed testing. View results →

Fixing test cases!

core/tests/fixtures/config_install/multilingual.tar.gz needs to be updated. This is the cause for some of the test fails.

Still looking into how to fix the other errors caused by the configuration difference.

Trying to fix more tests!

Fixing the rest of the test cases!

Moving to "Needs Review" as all the tests are now passing.

Thanks for working on this!

1. +++ b/core/modules/jsonapi/tests/src/Functional/RoleTest.php
   @@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ protected function getExpectedDocument() {
   +          'description' => null,
   

   NULL should be uppercase.

2. +++ b/core/modules/user/src/RoleForm.php
   @@ -16,7 +16,10 @@ class RoleForm extends EntityForm {
   +
   

   Extra blank line at start of method.

3. +++ b/core/modules/user/src/RoleForm.php
   @@ -49,10 +58,13 @@ public function form(array $form, FormStateInterface $form_state) {
   +
   

   Same

4. +++ b/core/modules/user/src/RoleForm.php
   @@ -49,10 +58,13 @@ public function form(array $form, FormStateInterface $form_state) {
        // Prevent leading and trailing spaces in role names.
        $entity->set('label', trim($entity->label()));
   +    $entity->setDescription(trim($entity->getDescription()));
   

   Do we trim this for other descriptions? Do we need to update the comment to match?

5. +++ b/core/modules/user/src/RoleInterface.php
   @@ -97,4 +97,22 @@ public function getWeight();
   +  /**
   +   * Returns the description.
   +   *
   +   * @return string
   +   *   The description.
   +   */
   +  public function getDescription();
   +
   +  /**
   +   * Sets the description to the given value.
   +   *
   +   * @param string $description
   +   *   The desired description.
   +   *
   +   * @return $this
   +   */
   +  public function setDescription($description);
   

   I had BC concerns but I think looking at the policy we are OK: https://www.drupal.org/core/d8-bc-policy#interfaces →

   "Interfaces that are not tagged with either @api or @internal can be safely used as type hints. No methods will be changed or removed from these interface in a breaking way.

   However, we reserve the ability to add methods to these interfaces in minor releases to support new features."

6. +++ b/core/modules/user/src/RoleListBuilder.php
   @@ -72,6 +73,9 @@ public function buildHeader() {
        $row['label'] = $entity->label();
   +    $row['description'] = [
   +      '#markup' => $entity->getDescription(),
   +    ];
   

   Why #markup for the description but not for the label?

7. +++ b/core/modules/user/tests/src/Functional/Rest/RoleResourceTestBase.php
   @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ protected function getExpectedNormalizedEntity() {
   +      'description' => null,
   

   NULL should be capitalised.

8. +++ b/core/profiles/demo_umami/config/install/user.role.author.yml
   @@ -40,3 +40,4 @@ permissions:
   +description: null
   
   +++ b/core/profiles/demo_umami/config/install/user.role.editor.yml
   @@ -44,3 +44,4 @@ permissions:
   +description: null
   

   We should set some good descriptions for the Umami roles.

9. +++ b/core/tests/Drupal/FunctionalTests/Installer/InstallerExistingConfigTestBase.php
   @@ -107,7 +107,11 @@ public function testConfigSync() {
   +        'user.role.anonymous',
   +        'user.role.authenticated',
   

   Is this only to make the tests pass? This feels like working around a problem that should be solved elsewhere.

+++ b/core/modules/user/src/RoleInterface.php
@@ -97,4 +97,22 @@ public function getWeight();
+  public function getDescription();
...
+  public function setDescription($description);

A further thought: should we drop NULLs, use empty string as the default, and add typehints on the methods?

🌱 [policy, no patch] All new Drupal 10 code should use appropriate type hints wherever possible Needs review is not yet policy but is starting to be followed in other new features I think.

I like the idea of using an empty string by default as opposed to NULL.

Good find on the interface documentation.

As for #40.6, I was not sure why the markup was needed but without it the rows would not render properly. Now I'm thinking it may have been the NULLs. If not, no idea.

#40.9, it's definitely skirting the issue. We'll need to find out how to have it come up as not changed.

Implemented suggestions from #40 except the 9th point. Still looking into the last point.

Do we also need to consider an upgrade path here? The descriptions should be set for anonymous and authenticated user roles on existing sites, I think.

Fixing code standard and set description = '' instead of NULL RoleResourceTestBase.php

It still needs work.

Fixing few test cases!

In the failed test, the minimal profile gets installed and it picks the config from core/modules/user/config but it doesn't get the "description" field in it. Hence the test cases fail. I have checked this issue, the config in the user module is correct but in the tests, the new config doesn't get updated. Can someone suggest a step forward.
Thank you

I think we need to update the configuration tarballs to fix the remaining tests

tests/fixtures/config_install/multilingual.tar.gz
tests/fixtures/config_install/testing_config_install.tar.gz

Triggering the tests

This is looking good, but I still think we need an upgrade path to add the description to anonymous and authenticated user roles, and tests for this.

Set to need work because of comment #50.

Adding post update to add description to anonymous and authenticated user roles and a test for it

Now patch looks good.
Set to RTBC.

Nice work, this looks really good now. RTBC+1

Great work, thank you all! This is a very helpful little improvement missing since Drupal 6 :)
RTBC+1

Drupal 9.1.0-alpha1 → will be released the week of October 19, 2020, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted for the 9.2.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal 9 minor version schedule → and the Allowed changes during the Drupal 9 release cycle → .

Setting to NW for #59

Drupal 9.2.0-alpha1 → will be released the week of May 3, 2021, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted for the 9.3.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal core minor version schedule → and the Allowed changes during the Drupal core release cycle → .

Drupal 9.3.0-rc1 → was released on November 26, 2021, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted for the 9.4.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal core minor version schedule → and the Allowed changes during the Drupal core release cycle → .

I've tried to reroll the patch in #53 for the latest 9.3.x (and 9.4.x). This went mostly okay, except for the changes to tests/fixtures/config_install/multilingual.tar.gz and tests/fixtures/config_install/testing_config_install.tar.gz, from which I'm not sure yet how to update these. So I'm leaving this issue to "Needs work" because of that.

@raman.b
Can you re-add the changes needed for the tarballs?

I've also updated the issue summary and added screenshots.

Drupal 9.4.0-alpha1 → was released on May 6, 2022, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted for the 9.5.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal core minor version schedule → and the Allowed changes during the Drupal core release cycle → .

I'll try to work on this.

Sorry, I tried to work on this one but it's beyond my actual knowlege...

Changing the status to unassigned for someone with more experience take a look.

Hi! I'll try to help on this one more time...

Hi guys! Sorry... I really tried to help but didn't make it... So, I'm leaving for someone with more knowledge to work on...

Fixing failed tests of patch #63.

I'll work on this

I was able to fix the problems on the "Installer" tests. Could not make any progress on the "Config" tests, though.

Leaving unassigned and as "Needs work".

I'll fix the #71 patch and the interdiff because i removed some tests that i should not have removed.

Patch adjusted. Leaving unassigned.

Drupal 9.5.0-beta2 → and Drupal 10.0.0-beta2 → were released on September 29, 2022, which means new developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted for the 10.1.x-dev branch. For more information see the Drupal core minor version schedule → and the Allowed changes during the Drupal core release cycle → .

2 years later I just saw this helpful one got stuck again as of #63.

So perhaps this should first be reviewed at a usability team meeting as of Needs usability review so we can do the right things here afterwards and finally fix this?

Drupal core is moving towards using a “main” branch. As an interim step, a new 11.x branch has been opened → , as Drupal.org infrastructure cannot currently fully support a branch named main. New developments and disruptive changes should now be targeted for the 11.x branch, which currently accepts only minor-version allowed changes. For more information, see the Drupal core minor version schedule → and the Allowed changes during the Drupal core release cycle → .

It's a pity these nice little usabillitytweaks get stalled. I would say this is fine to continue with. Content types, vocabularies, media types, menus all have their own description field, it's perfectly reasonable and useful to add similar for roles.

Adding a condition on configs to not add a description on a role when it does not exist

Usability review

We've discussed this issue several times over the course of the last few months.

The first time we've discussed this issue at 📌 Drupal Usability Meeting 2023-06-09 Active . The link to the recording of the meeting is https://youtu.be/V_jT7Y9wWL8 . For the record the attendees at the meeting were @aaronmchale, @benjifisher, @emma-horrell, @rkoller, @simohell, and @worldlinemine.

We've revisited this issue at 📌 Drupal Usability Meeting 2023-06-16 Needs work . The link to the recording of the meeting is https://youtu.be/iriHrANnMKk . For the record the attendees at the meeting were @benjifisher, @blackbamboo, @rkoller, @shaal, and @worldlinemine.

The third and last time we've discussed this issue was in today's meeting at 📌 Drupal Usability Meeting 2023-12-01 Needs work . That issue will have a link to a recording of the meeting. For the record, the attendees at the usability meeting were @AaronMcHale, @anushrikumari, @benjifisher, @ckrina, @rkoller, @simohell, and @worldlinemine.

If you want more feedback from the usability team, a good way to reach out is in the #ux channel in Slack.

At first it has to be pointed out that there was a clear consensus right from the first meeting on that adding a description field to a role is a helpful and desirable addition.

The problem with the currently suggested descriptions is for one some sort of redundancy in the beginning of the sentences with "The role given..." or "The basic role give..." while the end of the sentences mostly mirrors the role name and doesn't add any extra value/information except for Anonymous users to a certain degree where it is stated that it is a role given to logged in users.

Therefore we've tried to come up with suggestions for the Anonymous user, Authenticated user, Content editor, and Administrator role during the three meetings as well as asynchronous discussions. It was sort of a rabbit hole if you are trying to get to a consensus for clear, concise, none redundant descriptions in plain language minding edge cases and scenarios. Three meetings plus asynchronous discussion in a Google Doc in between are testament to that. In today's call we came to the conclusion that this issue might "never" or at least not get in the near future. The missing consensus on the micro copy is just blocking a helpful and useful feature.

The group would suggest the following approach to proceed:

1. Make this issue only about providing/adding a description field to a role without adding a default description for any of the roles in the standard profile ( Anonymous user, Authenticated user, Content editor, and Administrator) and the additional roles for demo_umami (Author, Editor).

2. Move the work on the default role descriptions to a to be created follow-up issue.

3. In regards of micro copy the only thing left to change in this issue is the description for the description field on the role edit form. At the moment the description The description for this role. doesn't provide any value/information. It would be good to be inline with the proposed changes in 📌 Make Description Field Labels Consistent Needs work :

For the field label use:
Description

For the field description use:
Displays on [the place where the description will be shown]

For a content type the description for the description is for example Displays on the Content types page. so analogous for the Roles page it would be Displays on the Roles page. there. That way the user knows where that information will be displayed and used.

one addition to #88.2 after some post meeting followup conversation on slack yesterday. Ideally there should be three followup issues:

1. Default descriptions in the Standard profile
2. Default descriptions in the demo_umami profile ( compared to standard it is missing the content editor role but has Author and Editor instead)
3. Discuss the implications if the user is changing the Administrator role on the role settings page (admin/people/role-settings). How should that change be handled in regards of the descriptions of the former Administrator role and the new Administrator role? Because if you change the Administrator role from the Standard or the demo_umami profile that Administrator role gets set back to the initial list of permissions which is actually none: https://git.drupalcode.org/project/drupal/-/blob/9.5.x/core/profiles/sta... . Therefore its description would have to be updated and reflect those changes otherwise it would be misleading and confusing to the user. That brings up also the question if you update the description for the former Administrator role to something reflecting that this role isn't an administration role anymore still having the name Administrator could also be potentially puzzling. There is also an existing issue that deals with the potential consequences of changing the Administrator role and the possibility of locking yourself out: 📌 Prevent accidental lockouts on the Role settings page and clarify the corresponding description for its select box Active .
Plus how to handle the description of the new Administrator role permission. Was that new role previously one of the Standard roles or a role newly created by the user? Is the old description for a role becoming the new Administrator role be stored in case the Administrator role is changed again? All details that would have to be discussed and minded in the followup.

Thanks @rkoller! Let's finish this. I think we should turn this into a MR for the last steps. I'll see what I can do in the next days. This will be a tiny, but very helpful addition!