mirror of
https://github.com/BookStackApp/BookStack.git
synced 2026-02-09 03:09:38 +03:00
Ability to hide/archive entities #1385
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @cnfw on GitHub (Sep 28, 2019).
As BookStack is a documentation platform, quite often documentation becomes outdated or a project moves on and is no longer actively worked on. It would be great to be able to archive a book so that it doesn’t appear in the main books list (at least not amongst non-archived books) but still remain accessible if necessary.
The benefits this feature would bring to BookStack users
I seldom use the full Books list in my instance, just because it is full of books that I no longer update/consult regularly, but nonetheless should be kept for legacy and historical reasons. A major benefit this would bring to BookStack users is clearing out the clutter that builds up over time.
Additional context
Something like this can be achieved using custom permissions, but that adds a level of friction when it comes to managing larger sets of books.
It could get messy if you can archive shelves, books, chapters and pages, but with the refactor on its way, it might become easier. (Since if you archived a book, a page contained in the book should also be archived, but doesn’t necessarily need to be stored as such.
@kayvanaarssen commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2021):
@ssddanbrown Is it easy to integrate this in a release in the near future?
We have the same point at the moment. Some Software / Documentation is not needed anymore (Active) but we want to keep it in an Archive.
It would be great to have that option.
So its still available when ever its needed.
Yes we can Export to PDF etc. but... Than it will get tossed around to a file Share etc. and nobody can find it...
@ssddanbrown commented on GitHub (Sep 28, 2021):
@kayvanaarssen Probably not near future from my perspective. Some thoughts from me on this topic can be found on the related issue: https://github.com/BookStackApp/BookStack/issues/2756#issuecomment-845500503
@ghost commented on GitHub (Aug 25, 2022):
This would be a really nice feature.
Using roles is not feasible imho as you would have to add/remove the role if you wanted to look at the archived articles.
A simple "don't include this in search results" would be a way to "archive" articles in a book of your choice.
@jreynoldshrg commented on GitHub (Mar 5, 2024):
I'm going to add my two cents here for this feature request. I believe I opened one a while back for this very thing. Now that we've been using BookStack for a few years, we have quite a lot of old docs we don't want to show up in searches or Books - but would be perfect to archive in some manner so that we could just search the archive and either see, or resurrect them to a new book/shelf if needed. We hate to get rid of good documentation and sometimes refer back, but we don't want it cluttering up our production searches and material.
@barbedCoil commented on GitHub (Mar 5, 2024):
The option to archive would be very useful. Another option could be to add permissions, when creating an Archive book, to simply check a book option that says "Exclude from Search" or a check option that simply indicates 'Archive' and exclude any books marked this way from searches. I'm sure I'm simplifying the issue but something like this would keep things clean without trying to manage yet more permissions.
@kwt5152 commented on GitHub (Mar 26, 2025):
Adding my support for this type of functionality. We have several deprecated pages that we want to keep around, but that we don't want crowding the regular search results.
I envision something along the lines of a specific "archive" or "exclude_from_search" tag or checkbox that would exclude items from appearing in the default search. Even something like starting the name with "[ARCHIVED]" would be sufficient. Then, there could be a checkbox in the search bar for "show archived content" or some kind of syntax to append to the search string to include things that were archived. Alternatively, a specific URL that shows all archived content could work as well (e.g. https://bookstack.example.com/archive).
@jsreynolds commented on GitHub (Mar 26, 2025):
I'll get back in the fray for this one. :-)
As we move forward in the years, we're not sure what to do with our content we want to depreciate. We would like to be able to "hide" or depreciate entire books or articles, but leave them in the original structure. And, they shouldn't be in search, unless requested. That way our more complicated structures can remain intact, and it would be (in theory) easy to check a box to show the archived contents. I guess I'm telling the how, but instead just really communicate that the problem is increasing as time goes by.
@suzanna13 commented on GitHub (May 8, 2025):
Up for this feature.
I tried to create another shelf with name archive and permissions only to archive user group, but when I move book to this shelf, it still stays in the origin shelf too!
And if i delete this book from archive, its deleted from origin shelf too! Strangle.
@vmario89 commented on GitHub (Jun 21, 2025):
I still see the archiving feature useful (having the same request to put stuff to archive instead deleting it). Having archived pages/books/shelves, we could add a flag to exlude them from search results or tick a checkbox in search to show results from archive. indeed mainly i want to exlude stuff from search results to find the recent things instead all at once
so i am sharing a lot of thoughts in this request here.
@suzanna13 commented on GitHub (Jun 21, 2025):
Labdien!
Informējam, ka esam veikuši izmaiņas e-pasta domēnā un turpmākai saziņai, lūdzu izmantot šo e-pastu @.*** , iepriekšējais e-pasts NAV aktīvs un vēstules NETIEK pārsūtītas.
Paldies!
@AndrinGautschi commented on GitHub (Sep 22, 2025):
We'd love the archive feature. Current workarounds all have their own significant drawbacks; Either the archived items become totally inaccessible (like when we put something into the Recycle Bin), or their 'out-of-date' nature is poorly communicated (like when we put '[Archive]' into the name of the shelf/book/chapter/page title), or the whole structure of the wiki breaks (like when we move a book to its own archive shelf, not to speak of the problem with chapters and pages).
So, an archive function that works on all levels and recursively marks its nested entities (at least those that are not linked elsewhere) clearly and visibly as 'archived' would be super useful. These archived entities should be searchable but, similarly like before, distinguishable from the up-to-date results.
@suzanna13 commented on GitHub (Sep 22, 2025):
Labdien!
Informējam, ka esam veikuši izmaiņas e-pasta domēnā un turpmākai saziņai, lūdzu izmantot šo e-pastu @.*** , iepriekšējais e-pasts NAV aktīvs un vēstules NETIEK pārsūtītas.
Paldies!
@jreynoldshrg commented on GitHub (Sep 22, 2025):
@AndrinGautschi
100% this - exactly what I would hope for / want from an archive solution. Maintain the structure, etc. - just depreciated so they don't show up unless searched or flagged to do so.
@bjinthahouse commented on GitHub (Sep 29, 2025):
I can second this all the way. We are using Bookstack to document our customer systems, FAQs, network diagrams etc. Some sort of archiving flag would be really useful!
@kevin39 commented on GitHub (Nov 17, 2025):
Will love the ability to exclude book from search too ! I've a "template" book and some keyword always matches our template book :'(
@kevin39 commented on GitHub (Nov 17, 2025):
Another possibility to add a filter to exclude results from book name containing a specific word (in my case, this is enough)