First, thanks for this contribution. We've just talked a bit in @decidim/product meeting today, and we thought that this would be a great improvement for the current permissions in assemblies and it's relatives.

By any chance, do you have a Metadecidim proposal to know more details about this?

For what I've seen, given that there's a set of Grandmother > Mother > Child assembly, if you give an Admin user role to a participant in the Mother assembly, then...

How it works before this PR

• The admin can only see some data of the Grandmother assembly (if it's promoted, title, created at, if it's private and published)
• The admin can fully administer the Mother assembly
• The admin cannot see the Child assembly, unless it's given a specific user role in it, of course

How it works after this PR

• The admin has some new icons in the Grandmother assembly screen (like Export and Duplicate) but when clicking I see the "You are not authorized to perform this action" callout
• The admin can fully administer the Mother assembly
• The admin can see the Child assembly, but it has the same behavior as Grandmother (I have the Export and Duplicate buttons, but when clicking it says that I'm not authorized)

How I expected that this work

• The admin can only see some data of the Grandmother assembly (if it's promoted, title, created at, if it's private and published)
• The admin can fully administer the Mother assembly
• The admin can fully administer the Child assembly

First of all, thank you for this thorough testing @andreslucena

We'll create the proposal in meta-decidim asap and will extend this PR with the missing permissions for Export and Duplicate.

There's a failing relevant spec related to assemblies permissions, can you check it @LauraJaimeC 🙏🏽 ?

There's a failing relevant spec related to assemblies permissions, can you check it @LauraJaimeC 🙏🏽 ?

Hi! can you review it again? Thanks!

Also can you add more details with the last changes and how it should work in the PR description? Thanks

@LauraJaimeC , we must backport to 0.25 also.

Metadecidim proposal: https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/16942

@LauraJaimeC , we must backport to 0.25 also.

We're in the process of releasing v0.26, so we don't accept backports to v0.25 already. For now, we have the v0.26.0.rc2, but we hope to have the v0.26.0 this week.

Also, as this is a new feature, we don't accept backports for this.

Of course, if you need it in v0.25 you could make a fork, backport the feature in your fork and configure your installation against that.