This content has been marked as final. Show 9 replies
I have checked this already (sorry for not mentioning this) and I did notice that on searching it shows the dpaction is search, but for the check-in page it does not show any action. this is also the case for the standard records profile too which is why I thought it was not the cause though.
Nick wrote:I am trying to restrict the options that are available in a list for users toselect during checkin, but want the options to be available in the search
profile still. as a result I have created a global rule which tells the profiles
on checkin to hide the 4 options from view.>
To me, this is the head scratching part of the equation. :-) Based on the limited information and use case provided, why would you want to exclude individual options on a checkin page, yet include them in a search page list? Using one of the extra options from the search-page-only option list in a search guarantees the search to return no results, since the option couldn't have been applied in the checkin phase.
For example, the checkin list contains "a,b,c". The search page list contains "a,b,c,d,e,f". Searching for options "a","b", or "c" could return results, but searching for "d", "e", or "f" will automatically result in no results, since the user can't apply those on checkin.
What else is going on that we're missing?
Reading your comment has made me realise how strange this request seems. The reason I am wanting to restrict it this is due to a restructure within my organisation, which has seen the split of one area into three. As a result this has caused issues with our custom security model where we had an area checking in content under an option in this list, but as the area is now split, and due to the large amount of records within this option, it is not feasible for someone to manually go through and separate these into the new structure.
My hope was to restrict it so the existing users that had access under the old structure could have still search for records but not check in.
hoping this clears it up a little.
Ok, so that makes a bit more sense. I'm assuming that no logic can be used to accurately reassign the trigger to the existing content (like "user x belongs to org 1, assign new trigger value 123", "user y belongs to org 2, assign new trigger value 456", etc.)
Are you having trouble with Configuration Manager profiles, or SimpleProfiles for like physical content? Also, based on your tags for the original post I'm assuming 10g? Please verify. ( In 11g (Configuration Manager profiles) I can achieve this setup, but SimpleProfiles seemingly will not allow the options on the search profile to be restricted, but works fine for checkin, which is likely a bug.)
yes I am on 10g still (planning to upgrade this year to 11g, yest another challenge ahead :-).
I have created a global rule in config manager which works as expected for the stock 'records' profile, but not for the additional profiles we have created (through simple profiles). eg, the records search profile shows all options, and the records checkin does not display the options (perfect), but our finance profile does not restrict the options in the checkin.
I am leaning towards this being a bug too, and my understanding is that 10g is past the stage of fixes being provided with the recommendation to upgrade to 11g, or at least this has been my experience with a couple other bug raised with them.
Are you using both SimpleProfiles profile rules AND Configuration Manager rules on electronic content?
I'd suggest that you don't use SimpleProfiles for electronic content. (You don't have a choice for Physical Content Management or any adapter based content - Simple Profiles is the only option in those cases.) I spent the better part of a year (a few years ago) working with 10g and fighting issues with SimpleProfiles - patch by patch. I came to the conclusion that only using them as the last resort is the preferred option.
Configuration Manager profiles for electronic content are more powerful in terms of being able to readily script for exceptions like you are requesting. The only thing where the SimpleProfiles interface benefits you is in being able to adding multiple fields in a rule at one time. My opinion is that the one convenience gained isn't worth the overall trouble of the rest of the functionality in SimpleProfiles. You've noted that you've raised other bugs which probably won't be addressed due to sunsetting. That's the cue that you're fighting an uphill battle.
Additionally, I wouldn't advocate the use of Configuration Manager profiles and SimpleProfiles profiles in tandem to control behavior for electronic content. There shouldn't be interaction issues (in theory), but SimpleProfiles in 10g were so flaky in performance terms that I wouldn't discount the possibility of conflicts. Also, it narrows down the places where you would have to troubleshoot.
Hope that helps.