[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10586?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16696556#comment-16696556 ]
Jacques Le Roux commented on OFBIZ-10586: ----------------------------------------- I think this should be closed as "Won't Do" following the discussion, notably [~deepak.dixit]'s advice: {quote}It looks good to have one FK relationship while reviewing entity def found following description. This is by design before proceeding we need to check this. "Defines a permission available to a security group; there is no FK to SecurityPermission because we want to leave open the possibility of ad-hoc permissions, especially for the Entity Data Maintenance pages which have TONS of permissions" Thanks & Regards -- Deepak Dixit {quote} > Change the relation type with 'SecurityPermission' in SecurityGroupPermission > entity to 'one' from 'one-nofk' > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: OFBIZ-10586 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10586 > Project: OFBiz > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: securityext > Affects Versions: Trunk > Reporter: Deepak Nigam > Assignee: Suraj Khurana > Priority: Major > Attachments: OFBiz-10586.patch > > > In the definition of 'SecurityGroupPermission' entity, the relation type with > 'SecurityPermission' entity is 'one-nofk'. Hence the system is allowing to > use the permissions not defined anywhere. (ex. > ORDERMGR_CRQ_ADMIN/ORDERMGR_CRQ_UPDATE, ASSETMAINT_VIEW). > > Change the relation type to 'one' to maintain the referential integrity. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)