- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎05-13-2020 09:12 AM
We have OOB author field on the KB Article form.
If article is in published state, author should be able to checkout for a new version. I've added condition to the UI Action "Checkout" current.workflow_state == 'published' && current.author == gs.getUserID()
And while author can see the button, upon clicking it it says You cannot checkout this article as it is already checked out.
This author has itil role and does not have any knowledge related roles (that's the main idea here).
How can this be achieved?
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎05-13-2020 10:36 AM

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎05-13-2020 09:16 AM
Please see solution below
Regards,
Sachin
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎05-13-2020 09:23 AM
Hi, I saw that but it does not give me any idea. I think the best way would be to override base function in script include but I have no idea how to do it.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎05-13-2020 10:36 AM
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎06-13-2025 05:59 AM - edited ‎06-13-2025 06:00 AM
Hello @Dawid2
I'm revisiting the customization for enabling checkout functionality for custom group members. You mentioned adding code to the "KBVersioning" script include.
However, upon reviewing the "KBVersioning" script include, I couldn't locate a "canCheckout" function. My findings indicate that this functionality, and the associated code, appears to reside within the "KBVersioningSNC" script include.
Could you please elaborate on how you implemented this solution? Specifically, I'd appreciate a more detailed explanation of your approach given the discrepancy in the script include where the code was expected.