Skip to main content

This site requires you to update your browser. Your browsing experience maybe affected by not having the most up to date version.

We've moved the forum!

Please use forum.silverstripe.org for any new questions (announcement).
The forum archive will stick around, but will be read only.

You can also use our Slack channel or StackOverflow to ask for help.
Check out our community overview for more options to contribute.

General Questions /

General questions about getting started with SilverStripe that don't fit in any of the categories above.

Moderators: martimiz, Sean, Ed, biapar, Willr, Ingo, swaiba

Delete Members in SecurityAdmin


Go to End


2 Posts   1723 Views

Avatar
Martijn

Community Member, 271 Posts

22 January 2010 at 7:12am

Regarding this previous posts about completely removing members from the database and the absence of a solution, I wondered if there is a reason for not having the possibility to delete members.

http://ssorg.bigbird.silverstripe.com/archive/show/133014#post133014
http://ssorg.bigbird.silverstripe.com/general-questions/show/269724#post269724
http://ssorg.bigbird.silverstripe.com/general-questions/show/261994#post261994

I really think is a basic operation that really should be available in the CMS by default. Why is it not there?

And also removing a lote members from a group takes ages, since we can only remove them one by one.
Is it an idea to have checkboxes on the Tablefield like in the AssetAdmin?

And when removing a member from a group, the member still exists, but you can't see them anywhere.
I was thinking of adding a tab or grouplink to display all ungrouped members (with a tablefield, so you can use a dropdown with the groups, so you can easily assing ungrouped members to a group)

I'm curious about your ideas and suggestions to solve the problem of undeleted ghostmembers.

Avatar
Ingo

Forum Moderator, 801 Posts

1 February 2010 at 9:39am

Agreed, there should be a (non-techie) way of completely removing a member from the system, as this is a real privacy issue. We're working on it... not sure if it will happen for 2.4 though, as it basically requires a UI redesign of the security section to a certain extent.