On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Kevin Meyer wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> Why not use the isis-addons security module to only authorise users to
> edit their own profile?
>
Oh, apologies, that is what I am using, but I think that if you have
permission to edit your own profile you can edit anyones if
Hi Steve,
As you point out, the user/role/permissions system of the security module
is class-based, not instance-based.
However, the security module also supports application tenancies. So you
could support these use case by defining an ApplicationTenancy for each
user, and then associating their
Hi Dan, sorry, you are right, I missed to push the changes. Meanwhile they
should be there.
Reproduce the bug:
- Create new "Application Setting" or "User Setting" of type e.g. String.
Thanks
Vladimir
2017-08-24 8:40 GMT+02:00 Dan Haywood :
> Hi Vladimir,
> that example branch doesn't seem t
Hi Dan,
I've used tenancies before to good effect to separate data by regions. In
this case I'll look to use them for different companies and then states
within companies (dreaming big!), your suggestion goes an extra step to
people within states within companies.
What I have done is to create a
I notice that the mandatory property 'red star' icon is appearing on the
ends of property labels almost everywhere, even if an object is made
read-only.
I've not noticed it before in earlier versions. Any suggestions why?
Thanks
There was a "bug fix" IIRC, that the mandatory indicator was missing in
some cases.
Currently, whether a property is mandatory or not is independent from
whether it's read-only... what's editable or not varies on a per user
basis, whereas the fact that a property is mandatory is an invariant.
Tha
Yes, I'll do that ticket and one other.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Dan Haywood
wrote:
> There was a "bug fix" IIRC, that the mandatory indicator was missing in
> some cases.
>
> Currently, whether a property is mandatory or not is independent from
> whether it's read-only... what's editabl
