# 能否将审批要求与群组成员资格关联？

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-it-possible-to-tie-approvals-requirement-to-membership-in-a-group/148540>\
**Category:** Feature\
**Created:** [2020年四月19日 18:09 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-it-possible-to-tie-approvals-requirement-to-membership-in-a-group/148540 "2020-04-19T18:09:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/swamidass/32/119549_2.png) [@swamidass](https://meta.discourse.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [2020年四月19日 18:09 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-it-possible-to-tie-approvals-requirement-to-membership-in-a-group/148540/1 "2020-04-19T18:09:47Z")

</div>

是否有一种方法可以设置某个类别，使得：

1. 特定组内的用户可以无限制地发布内容。
2. 不在该特定组内的用户也可以发布内容，但他们发布的所有内容都必须经过审核。

谢谢。

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![maiki](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/maiki/32/233950_2.png) [@maiki](https://meta.discourse.org/u/maiki)\
**Post date:** [2020年四月19日 20:16 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-it-possible-to-tie-approvals-requirement-to-membership-in-a-group/148540/2 "2020-04-19T20:16:40Z")

</div>

我不这么认为；作为选项，它们是不同的关注点，想必您已经发现了。🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pfaffman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/pfaffman/32/120154_2.png) [@pfaffman](https://meta.discourse.org/u/pfaffman)\
**Post date:** [2020年四月20日 13:55 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-it-possible-to-tie-approvals-requirement-to-membership-in-a-group/148540/3 "2020-04-20T13:55:28Z")

</div>

我认为一个变通方法是创建一个需要审核的二级分类，然后让版主将其移动到目标分类。

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tgxworld](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/tgxworld/32/106117_2.png) [@tgxworld](https://meta.discourse.org/u/tgxworld)\
**Post date:** [2026年四月15日 08:26 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-it-possible-to-tie-approvals-requirement-to-membership-in-a-group/148540/4 "2026-04-15T08:26:11Z")

</div>

顺便提一下，该功能已合并至

> <https://github.com/discourse/discourse/commit/c6db6c880c50350f94fb8d046653213d7a5bb89d>
>
> Category approval was previously a simple boolean toggle per post type (\`require…\_topic\_approval\` / \`require\_reply\_approval\`). This made it impossible to exempt specific groups from review or to require review only for certain groups.
> 
> This replaces the boolean model with a four-mode enum on \`CategorySetting\`: \`no\_one\`, \`everyone\`, \`everyone\_except\`, and \`no\_one\_except\`. The group-based modes pair with \`CategoryPostingReviewGroup\` join records to determine which groups are included or excluded. The old boolean accessors are preserved as aliases of the enum predicates for backward compatibility.
> 
> With the mode now living on \`CategorySetting\`, the per-row \`permission\` column on \`CategoryPostingReviewGroup\` is redundant since the join table only needs to track which groups are associated with a category, not what kind of permission they have. The column is made nullable and marked readonly in a pre-deploy migration, then dropped in a post-deploy migration.
> 
> On the frontend, the approval checkboxes are replaced with \`ComboBox\` dropdowns for the four modes and a conditional \`GroupChooser\` for the group-based modes, in both the legacy and simplified category editors. The simplified editor uses FormKit field-level validation to show inline errors when a group-based mode is selected without any groups. The legacy editor relies on server-side validation surfaced through \`popupAjaxError\`.

暂时关闭此主题 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tgxworld](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/tgxworld/32/106117_2.png) [@tgxworld](https://meta.discourse.org/u/tgxworld)\
**Post date:** [2026年四月27日 00:00 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/is-it-possible-to-tie-approvals-requirement-to-membership-in-a-group/148540/7 "2026-04-27T00:00:27Z")

</div>

本主题已在 11 天后自动关闭，不再接受新回复。