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 who are the users of the system. This role gives you the additional ability to access the CI at a organization, company, or department level. It also gives you the access to the CI from other applications (for example, Incident Management or Change Management). The *Used By *role is also used by software license management for compliance. Some more info: https://communities.bmc.com/community/bmcdn/bmc_it_service_support/blog/2013/08/07/the-pulse-getting-the-most-out-of-your-ci-people-relationships I haven't used this feature in the same context as you are looking to. I have used it where additional Managed By groups need write permissions and we don't want them to be Asset Admins. On the surface, it seems like this could work for User By purposes though. Jason On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:51 AM Dave Barber <daddy.bar...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 : > ;<numeric related to the "customer company">;1000000000; > > I've amended the 1000000000 value to a new permissions group for a couple > of CIs, and a profile that doesnt have the new permissions group or any > form of Admin rights (other than Asset Viewer) can still find the CI in > searches. > > Have had issues with mid tier caching, but never experienced issues > related to caching and permissions - guidance welcome! > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 13:33, Phil Murnane <phil.murn...@windward.com> > wrote: > >> Any chance that the symptom is due to a caching issue of some sort? >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* ARSList <arslist-boun...@arslist.org> on behalf of Dave Barber < >> daddy.bar...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Monday, July 22, 2019 4:57 AM >> *To:* ARSList <arslist@arslist.org> >> *Subject:* Atrium and field 112 >> >> All, >> >> This is on ARS 9.1.02. >> >> We have a range of users making use of both Atrium and Change >> Management. We have a range of CIs uploaded against a large number of >> compaies, and users have always been given unrestricted access. >> >> A recent requirement has involved us wanting to restrict visibility of >> some CIs to specific users. Multi tenancy would not be viable (as there >> are hundreds of companies within our system), so I had thought that >> replacing the value for "Unrestricted Access" in field 112 in Base Element >> for the relevant CIs with another permissions group, and adding that >> permissions group to the required users would have the desired effect. It >> does not work - profiles without the new permissions group can still see >> the "locked down" CIs. >> >> Has anyone else implemented anything along these lines? >> >> Regards >> >> Dave Barber >> -- >> ARSList mailing list >> ARSList@arslist.org >> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist >> > -- > ARSList mailing list > ARSList@arslist.org > https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist >
-- ARSList mailing list ARSList@arslist.org https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
