Another thought might be to create some base row level access groups rather than filling up. As an example if you have several support groups you could add those users under a group called SUPPORT that is populated into 112. Each user record would have to be updated and well as existing records, so it is not an easy fix up from but probably more scalable in the long run.
Mark From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Romain Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Field 112 on Base Element ** Actually field 112 is the CMDBRowLevelSecurity field. I guess you are relating a lot of support groups to CI’s, or have bespoke permission workflow, as normally this field only contains ‘Unrestricted Access’ and the group of the Company on each CI. If you increase it you will also need to increase the same field on base relationship as relationship CI’s inherit the permissions of the source CI. Cheers Peter From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gordon Frank Sent: 15 December 2010 16:04 To: [email protected] Subject: Field 112 on Base Element ** We are getting a Field 112 "fill-up" error on our Base Element form. The field is sized to 255. The Field name is: "CMDB Write Security" Can Field 112 in this case, be increased to unlimited? (0) What side-modifications would we have to make as well? We have CMDB 7.6 Patch 1 Thanks Gordon _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ ________________________________ This e-mail is the property of NaviSite, Inc. It is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Distribution or copying of this e-mail, or the information contained herein, to anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
