Defect #36278

Required field does not marked as required when user has multiple roles with different rules

Added by salman mp 7 months ago. Updated 7 months ago.

Status:NewStart date:
Priority:NormalDue date:
Assignee:-% Done:

0%

Category:Issues workflow
Target version:-
Resolution: Affected version:4.2.3

Description

In workflow permissions, when someone has multiple roles, suppose for a desired field, at least one rule is 'empty' (means default permission), and one is 'required'.
We expect this field to be required when editing, but it does not.

patch.diff Magnifier (1.33 KB) salman mp, 2021-12-03 09:30

workflow.diff Magnifier (667 Bytes) salman mp, 2021-12-03 09:33

History

#1 Updated by salman mp 7 months ago

Please remove invalid attachment. This is the true one

#2 Updated by Go MAEDA 7 months ago

salman mp wrote:

In workflow permissions, when someone has multiple roles, suppose for a desired field, at least one rule is 'empty' (means default permission), and one is 'required'.
We expect this field to be required when editing, but it does not.

I don't think it is a defect. In my understanding, an empty value does not mean that there are no permissions, but means there are no restrictions. In other words, there are all permissions.

In the case you have illustrated, the user has all permissions, so the field must not be marked as required.

#3 Updated by salman mp 7 months ago

Go MAEDA wrote:

I don't think it is a defect. In my understanding, an empty value does not mean that there are no permissions, but means there are no restrictions. In other words, there are all permissions.

In the case you have illustrated, the user has all permissions, so the field must not be marked as required.

I think in this case it is necessary to display the field as required, because it seems that the priority of "required" should be more than "no restriction" and the priority of "no restriction" should be more than "read only".

Note that when a user has multiple roles, he or she should have the highest permissions set on each field. Is that right?

Now (implemented):

read_only + required -> required

Based on that, we expect:
no-restriction + required -> required
no-restriction + read_only -> no-restriction

Also available in: Atom PDF