RNB-IT

Members
  • Content count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About RNB-IT

  • Rank
    member
  • Birthday January 3

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Amsterdam

FIleMaker Profile

  • FM Application
    14 Advanced
  • Platform
    Mac OS X Yosemite
  • Skill Level
    Intermediate
  1. Hi I got the problem.... <missing index> warning for the records /fields in the table SC_Person and SC_Address. The structure of the tables in the graph, in basic a "selector - connector" soultion: SC_USERS -- SC_Person ( link on username = ACCOUNT.NAME ) ACCOUNT.NAME is a calculated field with the value $$Accountname, which is initialized at the log-in screen. SC_USERS is connected to the layout table with x_Joins according to the selector connector solution. If we place one field from the SC_Person on my layout it says <missing index>. When we change the link to an x (cross) SC_USERS -- SC_Person ( on username x ACCOUNT.NAME ) it works. And the link is only used to see all files, so the ACCOUNT.NAMe can be removed and use the x_Join field. thanks for all the assistance and ideas, for coding Ruud
  2. Hi _user_privs = FilterValues ( Get ( AccountExtendedPrivileges ) ; SC_Users::privileges ) ; // why this? why not just tke the Account ext privs? when there is a version update of my application not all users have to (re)set a new password, the administration of all users is from an table Users, i known security wise it is better to add the users in filemaker, but you can limit the access to this table in a way that the table is only available for Admin (full access) or a few moments at the log-in window, and otherwise it is only readonly. The password is stored as MD5 in the file and all other security fields should be memory based (globals), this configuration is not yet set in the testApp. SC_Users::access_allof course the value is only 1 or 0, may be it's better to use the custom function like #boolean ( SC_Users::access_all ) than it's even more flexible, reusable than hard coding.I like the discussion about the style of coding and readablity of the coding, that's is every important, but the record level privilege problem in Filemaker Server is still an issue... andi really want to solve it.
  3. Hi Wim, You're are right, nesting could be difficult to read, but there is only one nesting in both lines... 1 line: Your line, with one statement more, to see where the switch is in the $$log between two records, and i will set it to the primary key. 2 line: Has the user (group) the rights that are defined in the extended privilege set, and is the result correct to see the information as defined. 3 line has the user rights to see all information , or is it limited to just a few records. In an let statement it would not be much better: let ( [ // get the user rights to access the table ~privilegeUser =FilterValues ( Get ( AccountExtendedPrivileges ) ; SC_Users::privileges ) ; ~privilegeDef = FilterValues ( ~privilegeUser ; "Address1View" ) ; ~privilegeAccess = not isEmpty ( ~privilegeDef ) ; // get the user rights to access the records by id ~idUser = FilterValues ( SC_Users::accesss_id ; _id_Person ) ; ~idUserAllowed = not isEmpty ( ~idUser ) ; ~idAcces = If ( SC_User::access_all and ~idUserAccess ; 1 ; 0 ) ; // result $result = If ( ~privilegeAccess and ~idAccess ; 1 ; 0 ) ] $result )The last part for the _id's is necessary for displaying related information on the same layout with the appropriate rights for the user. On part of the " evaluate this calculation from the context off": because the calculation is one that has to be universal for ALL layouts, i use a separated TO's structure, with connections based on the AccountName. I, see one typo error ~idAcces = If ( SC_User::access_all and ~idUserAccess ; 1 ; 0 ) ; should be~idAcces = If ( SC_User::access_all or ~idUserAccess ; 1 ; 0 ) ;
  4. Hi BruceR NOT in a dropbox folder, NOT served By file maker, File maker Closed, and on all my other computers i can uncompress the without any problem. I think that the fmforums upload is the problem, there is something going wrong at that point, maybe file size? If you like send me your email and i will we-transfer it.
  5. Yes also with Global fields i have the same results. I think i made the mistake to leave filemaker open and than made the archive, but here it is. compressed with standaard OSX 10.10.4 TestApp.fmp12.zip
  6. Hi, thanks for the explaintion of the log files, very nice, but still can not get the security rules working on the server version. what i see is that in the log files of the server version the portal is only evaluated for record number 0, (new records), but not for the record that should be displayed. STANDALONE first object record# 1 at 63572836260608 priv PERSON set evaluated record# 1 at 63572836260608 priv ADDRESS set evaluated record# 8 at 63572836260609 priv ADDRESS set evaluated record# 1 at 63572836260609 last objectevaluated record# 1 at 63572836260610 first object record# 1 at 63572836260610 last objectevaluated record# 1 at 63572836260610 priv PERSON set evaluated record# 1 at 63572836260611 priv ADDRESS set evaluated record# 1 at 63572836260611 PORTAL Fieldevaluated record# 1 at 63572836260611 PORTAL Fieldevaluated record# 1 at 63572836260611 priv PERSON set evaluated record# 1 at 63572836260615 priv ADDRESS set evaluated record# 1 at 63572836260615 priv ADDRESS set evaluated record# 1 at 63572836260616 priv ADDRESS set evaluated record# 0 at 63572836260617 priv ADDRESS set evaluated record# 0 at 63572836260617 priv PERSON set evaluated record# 1 at 63572836260618 SERVER OUTPUT first object record#: 1 at 63572836436271 priv PERSON set evaluated record#: 1 at 63572836436271 last object record#: 1 at 63572836436279 first object record#: 1 at 63572836436280 last object record#: 1 at 63572836436280 priv PERSON set evaluated record#: 1 at 63572836436280 Portal Field object record#: 1 at 63572836436281 priv PERSON set evaluated record#: 1 at 63572836436284 priv ADDRESS set evaluated record#: 0 at 63572836436285 priv ADDRESS set evaluated record#: 0 at 63572836436289 priv PERSON set evaluated record#: 1 at 63572836436291 priv PERSON set evaluated record#: 1 at 63572836438391 priv PERSON set evaluated record#: 1 at 63572836438391 priv PERSON set evaluated record#: 1 at 63572836438391 priv PERSON set evaluated record#: 1 at 63572836438392 priv PERSON set evaluated record#: 1 at 63572836438410 priv PERSON set evaluated record#: 1 at 63572836438410 priv PERSON set evaluated record#: 1 at 63572836438411 priv PERSON set evaluated record#: 1 at 63572836438411
  7. Hi, maybe this one will open, (compressed .zip) what can i do si that the RLA is updated correctly TestApp.fmp12.zip
  8. Here is a test file, in the standalone version it works as expected, upload the version to an FMS14 and no data is shown in the portal. to have full access use admin password admin to have limited record acces use: name: hans password: hans all suggestions are welcome TestApp.fmp12
  9. Fitch: No succes same problem, security works in FM 14 but not on FMS14. I will prepare an file database for upload...
  10. Josh: Yes that's true pressed the wrong button
  11. We have record based security enabled with the security tab. the global var are loaded with data after the login of the user. The rule is for viewing the Company data: If ( $$Account.Access_ALL ; 1; not IsEmpty ( FilterValues ( $$Account.Access_ID ; _id ) ) ) the _id field is for the Company, the rule is in context of the @Company table. for the address table we have the rule ( If ( $$Account.Access_ALL ; 1; not IsEmpty ( FilterValues ( $$Account.Access_ID ; _id_company ) ) ) ) _id_company is on the Address table, the rule is in the context of @Address table when we relate the Company to the Address table with the data is correct displayed on two separated layouts (one Company with data LA_Company and one Address with data LA_Address), and than the security works as expected for both layouts. but when we make one layout LB_Company with an portal to LB_Address-Company than on the version which is hosted on the server the portal with Address data is blank, but that's not the case when runs in the standalone version? any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks.
  12. The idea is that i want to have a nice layout and a structure to manipulate the Privilege Sets, and give the administrators of the Solution tools to this without giving them complete acces to all the privilege sets.... Why is this bad practice
  13. I use the Privilege Sets for this purpose for each table, for each user we define View 1 Edit View 1 1 Create Edit View 1 1 1 Delete Create Edit View 1 1 1 1 results binair 1, 3, 7, 15 LockUser globalfield contains , "Company = 7; Contacts = 15; Orders = 7; Payments= 1" then use a function to extract the result, SeedCode_GetValue( LockUser; "Company") This we use in the Privilege Set on the table Company in the Limited... options on View, Edit and Delete on the privilege set when the result is true the action can be completed, also it's possible with one or two extra fields to add status levels: when create an invoice and added some lines, you can't delete the record, when the invoice is printed , the user can not edited or delete the invoice. .... a lot of other, and this all is controlled by the system That reduce the amount of Privilege Sets extreem --> One Set for all users! BUT the Create option is missing in this set-up.... for a plain database no problem, but for related records it should be available, Example: when we have printed the invoice, the system should not allow to to create related records.
  14. In the Custom Record Tab, modal screen there is for the view option an possibility to use an calculation. I use an database with all users to set the Privileges Set according the users rights. Without adding for each user his own Privilege Set. Why not use a calculation the option is available in View Edit and Delete
  15. I ave a question about the security levels in filemaker. I use a function to get access to the records of the tables based on File Maker Accounts and Privilege Sets (filemaker 13) in the security tab i use a custom privilege set and set for my table the View , Edit and Delete to custom. In the calculate tab i use a custom function to set the appropriate access. that works fine, but why can'y i do the same with new / create, that option is not available View, Edit and Delete have options; No, Limited... , Yes, but Create has only: No and Yes. How can i make this work so that some users cannot create new records for certain tables.