23, 2019 5:17 AM
To: ARSList
Subject: Re: Atrium and field 112
LJ/To all of you who have answered so far, many thanks for persevering with me
and attempting to guide me.
With regards dynamic groups, request ID in Base Element would require further
permissions added beyond the existing Assignee
LJ/To all of you who have answered so far, many thanks for persevering with
me and attempting to guide me.
With regards dynamic groups, request ID in Base Element would require
further permissions added beyond the existing Assignee Group, CMDB Data
Change All, CMDB Data View All, CMDB Write
To: ARSList
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Atrium and field 112
Dave,
When implementing dynamic permission groups, you need to ensure that the field
you are using not only needs to be in that field, but also in request iddid
you miss that by chance?
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:59 AM Dave Barber
Dave,
When implementing dynamic permission groups, you need to ensure that the
field you are using not only needs to be in that field, but also in request
iddid you miss that by chance?
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:59 AM Dave Barber wrote:
> All,
>
> This is on ARS 9.1.02.
>
> We have a range
the
restricted access to the assests and assign the support staff to that company
too. This should give you what your looking for and keep everything simple and
easy to manage.
Brian
From: ARSList On Behalf Of Dave Barber
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 8:39 AM
To: ARSList
Subject: Re: Atrium
thing like this years ago when permissions changes to the
> system weren't being honored by the mid-tier.
>
> HTH,
> --Phil
>
> --
> *From:* ARSList on behalf of Dave Barber <
> daddy.bar...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2019 8:50 AM
> *
Would the people relationship permissions work here?
https://docs.bmc.com/docs/asset91/relating-people-organizations-and-groups-to-cis-609066590.html
If the CI itself is in the Support Org Company then you can add Used By
relationships to grant additional permissions.
*Used by*— The people
honored by the mid-tier.
HTH,
--Phil
From: ARSList on behalf of Dave Barber
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 8:50 AM
To: ARSList
Subject: Re: Atrium and field 112
I'm really not sure - my main knowledge of field 112 is from an in-house
developed application where
I'm really not sure - my main knowledge of field 112 is from an in-house
developed application where we lock down data. In 10 years of usage of
Atrium we've never had any need for locking anything down.
The value that was in Base Element was :
;;10;
I've amended the 10 value to
Hi Brian,
I didn't sufficiently explain;we have thousands of customer companies and
only one operating company (we are company A, and we manage assets for
thousands of other companies).
If the CIs were to be locked down for one company (for security/contractual
reasons), in order to restrict
Any chance that the symptom is due to a caching issue of some sort?
From: ARSList on behalf of Dave Barber
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 4:57 AM
To: ARSList
Subject: Atrium and field 112
All,
This is on ARS 9.1.02.
We have a range of users making use of both
Without a better understanding of the company structure and the rhyme and
reason behind it, it is difficult to give a recommendation.
Why would you setup 100’s of companies, assign a bunch of users unrestricted,
and then not want to have multi tenancy setup? These all contradict each
other.
12 matches
Mail list logo
