Just went through that at latest gig. Those activities can only be executed onto collection. Kinda makes sense. Cesar On Feb 12, 2015 12:27 AM, "Roland Janus" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Have you noticed that the deploy and move action for an application is > linked to a collection instead of the application object itself? > > > > I have a packager role and a packager scope. There are also collections > for them and that’s the only thing they can touch. > > Almost.. > > > > > > They can create apps, collections within their limits and deploy to them. > > Once an admin changes the scope of a package, removes “packagers” leaving > “default”, there edit/delete etc. access is revoked. > > But they still can “deploy”, because that action is linked to a collection > and not what would make sense to me to the application. > > I mean the object to control is the application, not the collection, why > would “deploy” be part of an collection? > > Shouldn’t deploy always be linked to the object to the deploy and not what > to deploy TO? So “deploy” for all classes (app, packages, settings etc.)? > > Does that make sense to you? > > > > I could remove read only access, then they wouldn’t see it anymore, hence > can’t deploy, but I want them to be able to see live apps. > > > > Is there a way around that? > > > > -Roland > > > >
