Relation type in SecurityGroupPermission entity

[deepak nigam-2]

Hi Folks,

In the definition of 'SecurityGroupPermission' entity, the relation type
with 'SecurityPermission' entity is 'one-nofk'. Hence the system is
allowing to use the permissions not defined anywhere. (ex.
ORDERMGR_CRQ_ADMIN/ORDERMGR_CRQ_UPDATE).
Do we have any use case for this type of relation?

IMO, here the relation type should be 'one' here to maintain
the referential integrity. WDYT?


Thanks & Regards
--
Deepak Nigam
HotWax Systems Pvt. Ltd.

[Julien NICOLAS]

+1


Le 22/09/2018 à 14:15, Deepak Nigam a écrit :
> IMO, here the relation type should be 'one' here to maintain
> the referential integrity. WDYT?

[Jacques Le Roux]

+1

Jacques


Le 24/09/2018 à 08:28, Julien NICOLAS a écrit :
> +1
>
>
> Le 22/09/2018 à 14:15, Deepak Nigam a écrit :
>> IMO, here the relation type should be 'one' here to maintain
>> the referential integrity. WDYT?
>
>

[Deepak Dixit-4]

It looks good to have one FK relationship while reviewing entity def found
following description. This is by design before proceeding we need to check
this.

"Defines a permission available to a security group; there is no FK to
SecurityPermission because we want to leave open the possibility of ad-hoc
permissions, especially for the Entity Data Maintenance pages which have
TONS of permissions"

Thanks & Regards
--
Deepak Dixit


2018-09-25 14:21 GMT+05:30 Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>:

> +1
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
> Le 24/09/2018 à 08:28, Julien NICOLAS a écrit :
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> Le 22/09/2018 à 14:15, Deepak Nigam a écrit :
>>
>>> IMO, here the relation type should be 'one' here to maintain
>>> the referential integrity. WDYT?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Indeed, thanks Deepak

This is from pre Apache era by David.

I finally see no harm keeping it as is.

Jacques


Le 25/09/2018 à 11:07, Deepak Dixit a écrit :

> It looks good to have one FK relationship while reviewing entity def found
> following description. This is by design before proceeding we need to check
> this.
>
> "Defines a permission available to a security group; there is no FK to
> SecurityPermission because we want to leave open the possibility of ad-hoc
> permissions, especially for the Entity Data Maintenance pages which have
> TONS of permissions"
>
> Thanks & Regards
> --
> Deepak Dixit
>
>
> 2018-09-25 14:21 GMT+05:30 Jacques Le Roux <[hidden email]>:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 24/09/2018 à 08:28, Julien NICOLAS a écrit :
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 22/09/2018 à 14:15, Deepak Nigam a écrit :
>>>
>>>> IMO, here the relation type should be 'one' here to maintain
>>>> the referential integrity. WDYT?
>>>>
>>>
>>>