Is it possible for only managers to be allowed to mark tasks as any closed status?
We are running into an issue where some staff close an issue that shouldn't have been closed.
I simply need a way for only team leads have to ability to close an issue.
Pachonk, yes, it is possible. You have two options:
Make State field private and grant "Update Issue Private Fields" permission to the managers only and "Read Issue Private Fields" both to the staff and the managers. In this case only managers will be able to update State field.
Write a workflow rule that will prohibit setting State to #Resolved for non-managers (in this case you need to have a role Managers granted to your managers and only them):
when issue.becomesResolved() {
assert loggedInUser.hasRole("Managers"): "Only managers can close issues!";
}
Related
I'm new in OOP and I just started learning it. Its too complicated to determine the functionality of classes. Let's take an example:
We have an Address-book and an user want to add a new contact to it.
In this scenario we have 2 classes:
User: that determine the user that logged in.
Contact: A contact object that consists of Name, Address, Phone Number, etc
And the questions:
Who have to save a new contact?User class or Contact Class
If we try to check the user's permission before doing anything where is the best place for it?
Is it OK that these classes have a access to database?(Is it better to create 3rd class for doing query stuffs?)
Thanks for any good idea ;)
Usable distribution of "responsibility" is an OOP design and architecture decision with no single simple correct answer. For discussion refer to Stack Overflow question What is the single most influential book every programmer should read?
You'll learn the pros/cons by coding (using someone's design or creating your own design which does not work well).
However there are some useful/frequent distributions of responsibility already known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design_pattern
In my opinion the only fixed fact is that each class/function/structure should have its responsibility clearly defined/documented - since the very first lines of code - and "do one thing and do it well"
Contacts are user specific. Thus every user object (class instance) should contain its own contacts object which is a container of contact (other user) objects, comprising in turn of name, address, phone etc.
class User {
String name;
String phone;
String address;
Contacts contacts;
....
}
class Contacts {
List<User> items;
}
The Contacts class should have the implementation of saving a new contact, which needs to be called from a User method, something like the following.
User u;
Contacts c = u.getContacts();
c.addContact(name, address, phone);
User's permissions should be checked in the User class.
The methods of these classes should interface with the database. For this each class method can open a new connection to a database and execute SQL queries. Example method of User cass:
User getContact(String name) {
Connection conn = getConnection();
....
PreparedStatement ps = con.prepareStatement("select * from Contacts where name = ?");
...
return userRcd;
}
1) Save new contact must the separate class, which working directly with database
2) Best place to check user permission - in user class of course
3) See the item 1:)
I recommend you get strong knowledge about SOLID principles, it's basics for good design.
I have a question about the rbac system. I think I've pretty well understood it but I need more informations about a special case.
I would like to do the autorisations on groups instead of users. I mean for instance the group "HR" has permission to create a person. Then any person who join this group would have it as well.
Let me give you more informations.
A part of my database:
And this a part of what my group hierarchy could be:
So what I'm looking for, this would be a must, is a system where each group has some autorizations. People get the autorizations of their group and of their parents group (for instance people in "Forsys" has the autorizations of "Forsys", "R&D" and "Administration").
The solution I see at the moment is using bizrule. But I'm not sure write php code in database is a good idea and then if I update the group hierarchy (R&D inherits of RH instead of Administration) I would have to modify bizrule in database. I tried it and it works well but as you can see it require a lot of code.
$user = User::model()->with("people","people.groups")->findByPk(Yii::app()->user->id);
foreach($user->people[0]->groups as $group)
if($group->id == 2)
return true;
return false;
It's just for see if a user is in a group (without checking parent groups and hierarchy)
Another possibility could be create a new table "group_auth" where we would say for instance:
-Group_2 has role "managePerson"
-Group_3 has operation "deleteUser"
...
And then everytime a user is added in or removed of a group we would update his autorizations in the auth_assigment table.
I'd like to hear other opinions on this subject.
All comments will be appreciated :)
Thank you for reading and sorry for my English if you had difficulties to understand me.
Michaël S.
Do users ever get their own authorization items? If not, seems like you could in essence swap out the userid column in auth_assignment and name it / treat it as groupID instead. That way you wouldn't need to worry about keeping user auth assignments in sync with your group roles.
A couple of places you'd probably need to make some changes:
- by default CWebUser passes in the logged in userid for use in bizrules. Might be good to change that our with your own override that passes in groupId/groupIds instead.
- you'd need to override CDbAuthManager and rework some of how things work there
We've done something similar on a project I've worked on (we were handling multi-tenant RBAC custom permissions), which required custom CDbAuthManager overrides. It gets a bit tricky if you do it, but there is an awful lot of power available to you.
Edit:
Understood about your users sometimes needing to have additional authorizations. What if your group has a 'roles' field with different roles serialized in it (or some other method of having multiple roles stored for that group, could also be a relationship).
Then, on user login (for efficiency), you'd store those roles in session. Probably the easiest way to handle things would be to write a custom checkAccess for your WebUser override:
https://github.com/yiisoft/yii/blob/1.1.13/framework/web/auth/CWebUser.php#L801
as that will make things simpler to do your custom checking. Then I'd probably do something like:
if(Yii::app()->user->hasGroupAccess() || Yii::app()->user->checkAccess('operation/task/role')) {
....
}
In your WebUser hasGroupAccess method, you could loop over all group roles and send those to checkAccess as well.
Think that will work?
What I use to check access for groups when it's in another table, or somewhere else in the application I give the user the role per default. By using this:
return array(
'components'=>array(
'authManager'=>array(
'class'=>'CDbAuthManager',
'defaultRoles'=>array('authenticated', 'R&D', 'Administration'),
),
),
);
Under: Using Default Roles
By using this, every user gets these assignments. Now, I create a business rule to make sure that the checkAccess('group') will return the correct value.
For example in your case the business rule for R&D would be:
return (
count(
Person::model()->findByPk(Yii::app()->user->id)->groups(array('name'=>'R&D'))
) > 0
) ? true : false;
So what this does is:
find the logged-in person by primary key
look into groups (from the user) for the group with name R&D
if there is a group: return true (else return false)
According to a requirement, i have to change the owner of an account if the user does not have read access to a third object.
I need a functionality similar to the isAccessible() method of Describe Field Result, but it is only available for the current logged in user.
Is there any other way to check the user's CRUD permissions for an object in Apex code?
I wrote an article about this on my blog. There is a feature that was just released in version 24.0 of the API (Spring Release) that will let you do just this on a record by record basis for the current user.
Here is the link to that blog entry that goes into details: How to tell if a user has access to a record
Don't confuse record level access with CRUD - the latter is the ability for a user to Create, Read, Update or Delete an object in general, regardless of sharing rules etc. that might affect the user's access to a particular record.
To check whether a user can create (e.g. Contacts) in general, just use
Schema.sObjectType.Contact.isCreateable()
(returns true or false)
From the documentation. it sounds like you want to use execute anonymously.
Apex generally runs in system context; that is, the current user's permissions, field-level security, and sharing rules aren’t taken into account during code execution. The only exceptions to this rule are Apex code that is executed with the executeAnonymous call. executeAnonymous always executes using the full permissions of the current user. For more information on executeAnonymous, see Anonymous Blocks.
Although Apex doesn't enforce object-level and field-level permissions by default, you can enforce these permissions in your code by explicitly calling the sObject describe result methods (of Schema.DescribeSObjectResult) and the field describe result methods (of Schema.DescribeFieldResult) that check the current user's access permission levels. In this way, you can verify if the current user has the necessary permissions, and only if he or she has sufficient permissions, you can then perform a specific DML operation or a query.
For example, you can call the isAccessible, isCreateable, or isUpdateable methods of Schema.DescribeSObjectResult to verify whether the current user has read, create, or update access to an sObject, respectively. Similarly, Schema.DescribeFieldResult exposes these access control methods that you can call to check the current user's read, create, or update access for a field. In addition, you can call the isDeletable method provided by Schema.DescribeSObjectResult to check if the current user has permission to delete a specific sObject.
http://www.salesforce.com/us/developer/docs/apexcode/index_Left.htm#StartTopic=Content/apex_classes_perms_enforcing.htm#kanchor431
Have you tried the runAs() method?
Something like (not verified):
User u = [SELECT Id FROM User WHERE Name='John Doe'];
System.runAs(u) {
if (Schema.sObjectType.Contact.fields.Email.isAccessible()) {
// do something
}
}
The DescribeSObjectResult class has methods for checking CRUD.
E.g. this allows you to test whether or not the current user can update the account object in general.
Schema.DescribeSObjectResult drSObj = Schema.sObjectType.Account;
Boolean thisUserMayUpdate = drSObj.isUpdateable();
#John De Santiago: your article covers record level access rather than object CRUD (= object level access)
Very old post. Since then SF add option to query object permission:
Select SobjectType ,ParentId, PermissionsEdit, PermissionsRead
From ObjectPermissions
Order by ParentID, SobjectType ASC
Basically you will need to get the profile and permissionset of the user that you want to check and the relevant object. So it will be something like:
Select SobjectType ,ParentId, PermissionsEdit, PermissionsRead
From ObjectPermissions
where parentId IN :UserProfileIdAndPermission
AND sObjectType=:objectType
Order by ParentID, SobjectType ASC
I'm working on implementing a class for managing user permissions on my website.
For example: employees can view customer records but nothing else, employers can view customers as well as manage employees, and admins can do both those things as well as manage employers.
So far, what I've got is this:
I've stored a list of permissions, e.g addCustomer, delCustomer, etc. Each permission is linked to a list of the user roles which are allowed to do that action.
I've got a simple permissions class built. I'm using it something like this:
if ($permissions->can('addCustomer'))
echo " Add Customer ";
else
echo 'Not allowed to add customers';
However the tricky part is that in some places, I need to be more specific. For example: a customer has got the permission: readMsgs which allows him to read the messages between himself and an employee. However, if he has that permission, then he can simply change the url from:
site.com/messages/read/100
to
site.com/messages/read/101
And read message # 101 as well, which might be between another customer and employee. A customer shouldn't be able to read anyone's messages except himself.
Similarly, a customer has got the editCustomer permission, which allows him to edit his own profile by going to:
site.com/customers/99
(where 99 is his customer id)
But if he goes to
site.com/customers/100
He should not be allowed to access that page.
How can I solve this problem? Ideally I'd like to be able to pass on an id to the permissions class. E.g:
if (! $permissions->can('readMsg', $msgId))
echo 'not allowed';
if (! $permissions->can('editCustomer', $requestedCustomerId))
echo 'not allowed';
Any ideas how I'd have to restructure my class structure to allow the above kind of thing?
I would be more granular in my taxonomy of permissions (e.g., "readOwnMsgs" vs. "readAnyMsg"). This would elaborate your permission-checking code (e.g., site.com/messages/read/### goes something along the lines of "proceed if canReadAnyMsg or if canReadOwnMsg and message author is current user"), suggesting that this logic should be encapsulated in separate classes broken down by resource type or whatever other circumstances might have an effect on contextual information required to make such decisions.
I would have a message class with a canRead(User) function. This would check the user's permissions and say "Oh, I'm a message from a manager to an employee. Unless the user is the reciepient of the message, they can't read it." or just as easily "I'm a message from a manager to an employee. The user is a manager, so he can read it."
I'm typing it out in English because I suck a php (which appears to be the language of choice.)
how can I get all accounts of am employee?
In the "Siebel Object Interaces Reference" I found an example, how to get all industries of an account:
var myAccountBO = TheApplication().GetBusObject("Account");
var myAccountBC = myAccountBO.GetBusComp("Account");
var myAssocBC = myAccountBC.GetMVGBusComp("Industry");
So I would like to do something like:
var myEmployeeBO = TheApplication().GetBusObject("Employee");
var myEmployeeBC = myAccountBO.GetBusComp("Employee");
var myAssocBC = myAccountBC.GetMVGBusComp("Account");
But I get an error
Semantic Warning around line 23:No such predefined property Account in class BusComp[Employee].MVGFields.
I can see in Tools that there is no Multi Value Link called "Account" in Business Component "Employee", so I can actually understand the error message.
So I wonder how I can get all accounts of an employee.
I found the Business Component "User" which has a Multi Value Link to "Organisation" and another link "User/Account".
Is this what I am looking for?
How can I know? Where is documentation which tells me about the semantics of links? (Is this described in "Siebel data model reference"? I cannot download this document, although I have signed in...) This link could also link a user to the organization it belongs to.
If one of these links IS what I am looking for, what would be the way to go to get the "User" Business Component of a corresponding "Employee" Business Component?
Many questions of a Siebel newb...Thanks for your patience.
Nang. An easy way to approach this (and to learn it) is to figure out how you'd do it in the UI. Then move onto figuring out how to do the same thing in script.
When you say, "get all account of an employee," do you really mean get all accounts where a particular employee is on the account team? In the UI, that would be done by going to: Accounts > All Accounts Across Organizations, and querying for that specific user in the "Account Team" multi-value field.
From that same view, go to Help > About View in the application menu. You'll see in the popup that the view uses the Account business object and the Account business component. A quick examination of the applet you queried on will show you that the "Account Team" field on the applet is really the "Sales Rep" field on the Account business component. Here's how to mimic what we did in the UI, in script:
var boAccount = TheApplication().GetBusObject("Account");
var bcAccount = boAccount.GetBusComp("Account");
bcAccount.SetViewMode(AllView); // like All .. Across Orgs
bcAccount.ClearToQuery();
bcAccount.SetSearchSpec("Sales Rep", "NANG");
bcAccount.ExecuteQuery();
Then you can walk through the list of accounts and do something with each one like this:
// for each account
for (var bIsRowActive = bcAccount.FirstRecord();
bIsRowActive; b = bcAccount.NextRecord())
{
// do something here
}
I hope you're enjoying Siebel.