But still the permissions are done on the server level, so when changing permission on a field and/or form you does not need to recache mid-tier. (at least not for the SOAP part, you got this error: ERROR (332): You do not have write access (at create time) to field..)
On mid-tier you may see the field, but you does not see the value. Regards, Jarl 2010/1/13 Joe D'Souza <[email protected]>: > Yes you do need to clear the cache. This is because the form definition is > held by the Mid-Tier server and a new definition is created whenever there > is a change in the forms definition. The Mid-Tier server has no way of > knowing something has changed on the ARS server level. Filters (and off > course escalations) are the only objects that reside only on the AR Server > and hence do not need a Mid-Tier server re-cache when changed. > > Joe > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[email protected]]on Behalf Of Jarl Grøneng > Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 4:14 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: WSDL Permission Problem? > > > If you need to flush a cache manually if you change permission, then it is > something wrong with the security model. The permission level has to be done > on the server layer. > > In earlier version of AR Server row level access was omited if you access > the server using soap. > > Regards, > Jarl > > > > 2010/1/12 Grooms, Frederick W <[email protected]>: >> ** >> >> Also … Don’t forget… If you change the permissions you need to clear the > web >> server cache (That has bit me a couple of times in the past). >> >> >> >> Fred >> >> >> >> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lars Christianson >> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 1:52 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: WSDL Permission Problem? >> >> >> >> ** >> >> Fred & Joe, >> >> >> >> I can’t test the permissions changes on the other forms until tomorrow. >> >> >> >> As for your questions, >> >> >> >> “Are your sub form pushes from Filters or child data inside the XML?” – >> Filters >> >> “Is VT:VirtualTechnicianForm the form that the entry is being created by > the >> WSDL? Does this form has the right permissions to 1 and 112?” – VT is the >> form, yes. >> >> >> >> Thanks again for your help. I’ll let you know success or failure tomorrow. >> >> >> >> -L >> >> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lars Christianson >> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 10:53 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: WSDL Permission Problem? >> >> >> >> ** >> >> Hi folks, >> >> >> >> I have a question for you. I’m running ARServer 7.1, Mid-Tier 7.1; both >> Solaris 10. >> >> >> >> When I create a new ticket in two different forms using SOAP, I get a > ticket >> number back for the first form but not for the second form. In both cases, > a >> ticket is created inside Remedy. >> >> >> >> For example: >> >> >> >> The return response on Form A >> >> >> >> <soapenv:Envelope > xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"; >> xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; >> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";> >> >> <soapenv:Body> >> >> <ns0:OpCreateResponse xmlns:ns0="urn:Test_TestWSDL"> >> >> <ns0:Request_ID>000000000000015</ns0:Request_ID> >> >> </ns0:OpCreateResponse> >> >> </soapenv:Body> >> >> </soapenv:Envelope> >> >> >> >> The return response on Form B >> >> >> >> <soapenv:Envelope > xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"; >> xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; >> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance";> >> >> <soapenv:Body> >> >> <soapenv:Fault> >> >> <faultcode>soapenv:Server.userException</faultcode> >> >> <faultstring>ERROR (302): Entry does not exist in >> database;</faultstring> >> >> <detail> >> >> <ns1:hostname >> xmlns:ns1="http://xml.apache.org/axis/";>nc4</ns1:hostname> >> >> </detail> >> >> </soapenv:Fault> >> >> </soapenv:Body> >> >> </soapenv:Envelope> >> >> >> >> I thought this issue was related to row-level permissions based on > “Assignee >> Group” Field 112, but this field is included in both forms and is visible > to >> “Public”. >> >> >> >> Has anyone else come across this issue before? Any advice would be > welcome. >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> >> >> -Lars > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > Platinum Sponsor:[email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor:[email protected] ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
