permission usually refer to the Login of a party.
if you look in the ofbiz-component.xml, base-permission="PROJECTMGR",
your login must have this security level.

Mansour Al Akeel sent the following on 7/24/2011 10:29 AM:
> BJ,
> thank you for all your help. I looked at the links you sent me, and they
> were usefull. I still don't understand why permissions are checked in
> the ftl and not the service layer. However this is not the issue I am
> stuck at now.
> I think I am still confused about permissions.
> I created an account on trunk demo to show what I am talking about.
> 
> If you go to:
> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/projectmgr/control/main
> and try to login with mansour:ofbiz you will be greated with a screen
> saying:
> 
> org.ofbiz.widget.screen.ScreenRenderException: Error rendering screen 
> [component://common/widget/CommonScreens.xml#GlobalDecorator]: 
> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Error running Groovy script at location 
> [component://projectmgr/webapp/projectmgr/WEB-INF/actions/ListCurrentProjects.groovy]:
>  org.ofbiz.service.ServiceAuthException: You have no access to the project#: 
> 9000 (Error running Groovy script at location 
> [component://projectmgr/webapp/projectmgr/WEB-INF/actions/ListCurrentProjects.groovy]:
>  org.ofbiz.service.ServiceAuthException: You have no access to the project#: 
> 9000)
> 
> This is fine, as the user "mansour" doesn't have persmission to view
> this project, but shouldn't this screen display the projects he is
> member of (if any).
> 
> The second part is if you go to:
> 
> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/projectmgr/control/FindTask
> 
> and hit find, the user can see all the tasks that he is not member of,
> and clicking on any of them, will open the details about that task.
> 
> This user is in "PROJECTUSER"  security group, which has:
> 
> ROJECTMGR_ROLE_TASK_CREATE Be able to create a task (should be member of 
> project)     
> PROJECTMGR_ROLE_TIMESHEET_CREATE Be able to create a weekly timesheet for the 
> loginid. 
> PROJECTMGR_ROLE_TIMESHEET_UPDATE Be able to update(report) on an existing own 
> timesheet 
> PROJECTMGR_ROLE_VIEW All view operations in the Project Manager for a 
> project/phase/task the user is member of..      
> PROJECTMGR_VIEW ALL View operations in the Project Manager(but can be limited 
> by ROLE_VIEW) 
> 
> On my local machine, I removed that last one "PROJECTMGR_VIEW", but
> still this user can see others tasks.
> 
> Am I doing something wrong here?
> 
> I appreciate your help.
> 
> On Sun Jul 17,2011 10:09 am, BJ Freeman wrote:
>> New Role Type (see chapter two of the Book)
>> lets you define a new role type to use.
>> it is best to link with the book to use the webtools
>> https://demo-trunk.ofbiz.apache.org/webtools/control/ViewRelations?entityName=RoleType
>> you can also get the xml structure from the data and created a bunch of
>> them then load them via the web tools import. note: that service engine
>> and UI (widgets and ftls) need to changed if you want that role type to
>> have access.
>>
>> doing a google search for
>> ofbiz main role
>> http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Party-Main-Role-td1680393.html
>>
>> I hope these tips help you research you answer more. and As I said
>> before parts of you question are already been answered.
>>
>>
>> This may clear up more on security and Role View all.
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/OFBTECH/ofbiz-security.html
>>
>>
>> Mansour Al Akeel sent the following on 7/17/2011 8:45 AM:
>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> 

Reply via email to