[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10586?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16696556#comment-16696556 ]
Jacques Le Roux commented on OFBIZ-10586:
-----------------------------------------
I think this should be closed as "Won't Do" following the discussion, notably [~deepak.dixit]'s advice:
{quote}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
{quote}
> Change the relation type with 'SecurityPermission' in SecurityGroupPermission entity to 'one' from 'one-nofk'
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: OFBIZ-10586
> URL:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-10586> Project: OFBiz
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: securityext
> Affects Versions: Trunk
> Reporter: Deepak Nigam
> Assignee: Suraj Khurana
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: OFBiz-10586.patch
>
>
> 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, ASSETMAINT_VIEW).
>
> Change the relation type to 'one' to maintain the referential integrity.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
Locked
