David Sparks - 7 years ago
+1 to Jeff May's post (where's my "Like"?).
I can't wait to start planning on how to retire all the random, one user profiles and fold those people back in to the "real" profile for their job function.
Jeff May - 7 years ago
Version 1 of this could be a simple overlay of the user's existing record type assignments . Users have a default, but they also have access to additional. If a user should have a default, then that could still be set elsewhere, and let Permission Sets just additively make additional Record Types visible.
Creating new profiles with the only difference being the Record Types users can see makes it really hard to do rolling deployment of new sales and support processes since I have to move users between profiles as they and their teams are ready for the new record type.
Hi @tyesonc - It has been unbelievably great to get the feedback I have gotten from this post. Adding permissions like object and field to permission sets is much easier than adding settings like record types where there are a lot more interesting questions that have to be answered about things like the --Master-- (null) record type and the impact of a user's default record type assignment.
I know this because, [safe harbor], we are working on adding record types to permission sets. At this point I can't tell with certainity what release we will be able to get it out there for you, but the comments that everyone added to this idea were taken into consideration and discussed at length with my developers. They know, on a daily basis actually, how important this feature is to you and have appreciated the groundswelling of support you've lent to it.
Tyeson Cluff - 7 years ago
Hi Adam - I'm excited that this has been one of the most active posts on the entire site for Product Management interaction, which is very exciting to the community.
On this issue -
A) The experts agree, there is another layer of complexity when talking about including Page Layouts in Permission Sets, and so - we expect it to take more time to figure out a reasonable solution.
B) There is a near ubiquitous need to be able to provide Record Type access in Permission Sets. How many of us have users of one Profile, but they need different permissions to create records of different Record Types - so many of these commentors seem to be saying the same thing.
So - how's it looking? Do you anticipate this feature as something being realistic in Summer '13 or Winter '14?
Idealist Consulting - 7 years ago
I agree, this is needed. My client is an international organization on the Individual Bucket model - they have three contact layouts - Individual, International Student and Village Contact. Only the folks involved in their international programs need to see the last two. I just converted them from a six profiles down to two with multiple permission sets - now I find I have to multiply profiles again in order to provide the right access. Aargh!
I do LOVE permmission sets, thanks for all the awesome work!
Jason Edmondson - 7 years ago
Thanks again, Adam. The particular scenario that brought me to the Ideaexchange was this:
We have a form that needs to be open to basically all users at the point of submission. After submission, the form is locked down via the page layout because it contains very specific info that can cause lots of confusion if edited after the fact. However, we do have a small subset of users that need to manage that data and edit the locked form if necessary. To further complicate the issue, that subset of users are not all on the same Profile and we would prefer not to create a new Profile and assign all of them to it because they might need different access to other objects anyway.
Make sense? ☺