cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Define IBPL fields that they respect project permissions when showing the values

0 Kudos

Define IBPL fields that they respect project permissions when showing the values

(Looks like noone else had this request here, therefore I like to add this issue into the Idea portal herewith.)

In PTC Integrity LM (still in 11.1), IBPLs showing items even if the projects where the items beloning to are not accessible from permission point of view.

Business Case:

Having organisation specific data that only the org itself should see in their IBPLs.

But, if no simple constraint can be defined, then ANY item from any organization = project is shown to ANY user.

This is a known issue since years, a corresponding RFC exists. I saw that almost 40 customers are linked to this RFC.

The most obvious solution approach would be a simple check box in the IBPL field saying "Show only items from permitted projects = <yes/no>".

This would solve almost 60% of all setup issues we have in this area.

Furthermore, this easy solution would solve the diffculty we have with the post-fix like [2],[3] etc. Integrity adds this post-fix automatically in case another organization has also just entered the same summary. This post-fix makes it even more complicated to enter or update data through API or CLI, as we cant forsee which post-fix is added.

Thank you for your consideration

Volker

2 Comments
Level 8

We will definitely look into this idea. I cannot guarantee that the solution you are recommending here will be implemented, but I get the use case - the pick values should consider the permission model.

Level 7

When already checking for the permission model (which requires the information of the currently logged in user), it's probably worth taking a look into https://community.ptc.com/t5/Integrity-Ideas/Allow-quot-me-quot-as-a-valid-value-in-IBPL-filter/idc-... which could probably be solved along with this idea or at least prepared for implementing the other idea?

 

Otherwise I totally agree, that this idea would be a benefit for the product.