Hello BJ, and thank you for your reply. You can check the link here: https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewroles?partyId=DemoEmployee
It has "Add To Main Role" and "Add To Role : view all" Fields. and if you select soemthing like "Calendare" for the first one, you will get a third field "Add To Second Role". What is the difference between them ? I was confused with the security part, because was adding a user to a group, but still the user was not allowed to edit a project. I have to add the user as a resource for that project. What I understand now is, Party Roles has nothing to do with permissions, and the later has to be handled separately through the security group. Thank you. On Sat Jul 16,2011 11:01 pm, BJ Freeman wrote: > Yes I still have to go back and review. The book Deals only with Roles > related to Party. Security based on login is not in the Book. > The is covered in the Service Engine and Webapps, widgets > > It helps if you give complete URL to the places you talking about. It > saves time of the answerer and verify we are talking the same component. > The labels are in seperate files from actual code, so depending on who > put in the text for that label, it may not be clear as to its meaning. > > you can limit based on Roles, security groups and/or security roles > which is different from roles. > going through the widgets and Ftls will give you code examples of how > this is accomplished. > > The example component is good to review. > > > Mansour Al Akeel sent the following on 7/16/2011 8:29 PM: > > Ok, the "BOOK" explained things, and I know I have to read many parts > > again, especially while trying to match the readings with the > > functionality offered by OFBiz. > > > > Now I have a question related to adding roles. In the "Add To Role" > > screen: > > > > > > Add To Main Role > > --> Role Type Id > > > > Add To Second Role > > --> Role Type Id > > > > Add To Role : view all > > --> Role Type Id > > > > What is the difference between "Main Role" and "Second Role" and how do > > I use them ? > > What is the "Add To Role" mean ? > > > > Back again to the senario in the first email, and after I modeled the > > Parties, how do I let each access only to the functionality they need to > > access ? For example, "Approver" to aprove timesheet and work effort. > > Project manager to Assing tasks, "Developer" to update tasks. Would this > > have to be separately using "Security Groups" ? > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > On Mon Jun 27,2011 09:29 am, BJ Freeman wrote: > >> as both Adrian and I mentioned most of that would be described well in > >> the Data model book that ofbiz was modeled after, which is why not much > >> documentation is written specifically in ofbiz. > >> > >> There are emails in the archive that have covered different parts of > >> your question. > >> > >> Actually it has been a good time for the Documentation for over 6 years, > >> problem is getting someone to volunteer to do it. We have added internal > >> Help in ofbiz that needs to be filled out. ANY VOLUNTEERS. > >> > >> Normally such Contributions have been from someone hiring someone to do > >> the documentation, because it takes a lot of time to volunteer and those > >> that have to make a living do not have such time free. Then that > >> documentation was volunteered to ofbiz community. > >> > >> I limit my volunteer time per subject on the mailing list to 15 min, > >> unless i have a vested interest in it. I have even stopped answering on > >> here because my time has become very limited. as an example this email > >> took over two hours to finish because of interruptions to do business. > >> > >> so maybe others that have the time will volunteer the information you > >> desire. > >> > >> Most find the charge for the "BOOK" a lot less than hiring someone, or > >> volunteering the time to document. > >> > >> That said, feel free once you understand to volunteer you time to > >> documented this the way you think it should be done. > >> BTW I have made this offer to others that presented the same proposal in > >> the past and they have not volunteer such documentation yet. > >> > >> I would suggest you draw an organizational chart then use the fields in > >> ofbiz to associated the chart to relationships. There is no "ONE" > >> organization chart. > >> > >> Demo employee shows two relationships as examples, in a normal Company > >> there may be many relationships. like the one that says the demo > >> employee is a employee. > >> > >> you would use roles and relationship > >> > >> Mansour Al Akeel sent the following on 6/27/2011 4:28 AM: > >>> BJ thank you. > >>> > >>> My question is related more to ofbiz usage. In the relationship page: > >>> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/EditPartyRelationships?partyId=DemoEmployee > >>> you can see some fields that are not clear to me. To be more specific, We > >>> have: > >>> in the role of | is A of Party | in the role of > >>> > >>> There two relations for DemoEmployee. And each relation has two fields > >>> "in the Role Of". > >>> Further more, there is some confusion about where to relate employee > >>> to organization. I mean if you go to: > >>> > >>> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/partymgr/control/viewprofile?partyId=DemoEmployee > >>> > >>> You will see four tabs with labels indicates similar functionality: > >>> -Roles > >>> -Link Party > >>> -Relationships > >>> -Segments > >>> > >>> > >>> What is the difference between these ? To add employee to Organization > >>> I need to use ..... ? > >>> May be it's a good opportunity to discuss and document each of them, > >>> instead of referring me to the "BOOK" ;) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 9:10 PM, BJ Freeman <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> there is not much documented in ofbiz about party. > >>>> however if you read the Data model book Vol I you will see a lot about > >>>> partyrelationsips. Good diagram on pg 41 > >>>> In this case you would have party relationship with the company that > >>>> supplies contractors > >>>> so you need to setup the roles of each party then setup the relationship > >>>> between them > >>>> start with organizational party relationship then individual (person) > >>>> realtionships with organizations. > >>>> > >>>> example > >>>> the programmer would be a employee role with the recruitment company if > >>>> they contract, then the programmer would have a contractor relationship > >>>> with the Company. > >>>> > >>>> the rest you can get from the demo data or you can look at the demo site > >>>> at the different parties to see the relationships. > >>>> > >>>> Mansour Al Akeel sent the following on 6/26/2011 4:43 PM: > >>>>> Hello all, > >>>>> I didn't use the parties component extensively, and don't know a lot > >>>>> about it. > >>>>> Here's the scenario we have. Three Group parties: > >>>>> Programmers > >>>>> Recruiter > >>>>> Sales /marketing/Distributing > >>>>> The distributor obtains the requirements and hires the Programmers > >>>>> through the "Recruitment" company. Billing is done by hour. > >>>>> In each company there's two employees that interact with the system. > >>>>> programmer1 , programmer2 > >>>>> hr manager 1, hr manager2 > >>>>> project manager1, project manager2 > >>>>> > >>>>> We need to setup the system, to handle the requirements communication, > >>>>> timesheet, project management ... etc. > >>>>> I have created the three group parties, and 6 employees parties, and > >>>>> stopped there not knowing how to connect them. > >>>>> > >>>>> How to associate users (employee) with companies (Group Party) ? > >>>>> I tried to go to Relationships page and use "Add other party > >>>>> relationship", but those fields are not clear to me. For example "in > >>>>> the Role of" .... etc. > >>>>> Let's say I need to put hr_manager1 as an employee of "Recruiter" ?? > >>>>> How many accounts I need, knowing that the recruiter get a percentage ? > >>>>> > >>>>> What do I need to do after that ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Guessing is not very help full here as it relies on trial and error, > >>>>> and an error may not be initially visible. So I like to get an advice > >>>>> from someone with more experience in this area. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >
