When adding members and entitlements to roles, why do they show as line item veto on BOTH member and entitlement? If a person is in a role they should get all the entitlements of the role, not just pieces of the role.. the product is working contrary to how role basing works.. #roles #rolebasing #productissues
Can you clarify with some screenshots? (expected vs actual behavior)
Boris, please see info below. Thank you in advance for any help!
In this case I am adding 2 entitlements to a role. There are several members to the role. Each of the User Changes can be line item veto'd. This is a problem. If a person is a member of a role, then they have all the entitlements that are in the role. This is the definition of role basing. Is there a way to only show the changes to the role, adding/removing of members or adding/removing of entitlements? If we allow user changes to be line item veto'd then they can cherry pick who gets what entitlement which is not how roles work. At the moment the product only allows full line item veto of both tables, you cannot set just the one table.
What product version you are using?
In 7.0.2, the following functionality was introduced - Achieve Business Agility - Simplified Approvals
We are using 7.0.2 Patch 5 HF 3 -- is this the version where we can do that for entitlements as well as users? sean only mentions users..
Amy, what do you mean for entitlements as well?
Boris, it appears that in the workflow you can check a box to indicate that the approver sees all the indirect change items, they can line item veto them. As a role, members of the should get all the entitlements of the role. That said, if you uncheck the indirect change item box in the workflow, the approver now just has the ability to approve the entitlements and users added to the role (cannot cherry pick which users get which entitlements). Ok. good here. BUT if you add a role as an entitlement, which has entitlements under it (example, nesting a role that has ACM privileges as entitlements of the role to control what users can do if they are in that role) the system will not grant users those entitlements.. because it is indirect, they do not 'inherit' the entitlements. create a role, add some ACM rights to it. now create another role and add that role with the ACM rights as an entitlement.. if you unchecked indirect you will not get any of those entitlements...
I want to clarify that what I'd like to see is TWO entitlement tables, one showing all the users getting added; one showing all the entitlements getting added. Same with remove, show only the users getting removed in one table, show only the entitlements getting removed in another table. It seems there is ONE table showing all this which means an approver can line item veto bits and pieces of the combined change.