I need to set up user permissions within the same table, based on the value of a field. I know that this is not directly possible in Access but a post on Allenbrown.com points to a way of doing this see here. I'm not proficient in coding so I'm hoping that I can get some directions from you. Here are the details:
I have two tables in the database, a parent one populated via a form and a children one populated via a subform. The parent contains companies and the child contain subsidiaries of those companies. In the child table, I have a field called "Domicile" and I want to discriminate user access based on that. Because the database will be used by a variety of people worldwide, my plan is to create user groups based on location and allow users to edit (or add) information based on a match between their location (as specified in the group) and the domicile of the subsidiary. For example, a person in Europe will only be allowed to edit data for subsidiaries that are in Europe, even though companies from other domiciles may be stored in the same table.
I'm looking for some guidance here as well as suggestions as to how you think may be done most effectively. I'm not partial to this method, that's just something I came up with to put some logic behind what I'm doing.
Thank you so much!
The important thing to note in Allen's description is (emphasis mine):
Assuming all updates are performed through forms, the Current event of the form then locks the fields based on this property.
There would be no practical, bulletproof way to prevent users from viewing and altering any data in the table(s) if they open the back-end database file directly.
Since you are asking for advice on how "[row- or column-level restrictions] may be done most effectively" the first issue you need to address is how "effective" those restrictions really need to be:
If you can accept that these will be "soft restrictions" (really a matter of convenience to the user so they don't accidentally alter certain records or fields while using the forms), then Allen's approach might be sufficient. (If so, then follow Allen's instructions as best you can and ask new question if you need help with a specific aspect of that implementation.)
On the other hand, if you need "hard restrictions" (serious protection against mischievous or malevolent user activity) then you'll have to employ a different database back-end -- something like Microsoft SQL Server -- with a richer set of security tools for you to use.
Related
I want to build a small Access database to better keep track of the companies we are looking at. I read Access 2010 Inside Out by Conrad/Viescas, did a lot of their examples and had the feeling I understood the basics, so I started with my own data base. Now the struggle begins, I think I have a basic misunderstanding here.
The relation I started with is quite simple: Each company we look at can have listed peers that we want to use to compare this company to. Of course, each company can have many peers and each peer can be the peer of many of our companies. So I modelled this relation as a many-to-many relationship:
Next, I created the form for a company, which looked something like this:
I related the subform I used to show the peers with a query that is based on tblPeersCompanies_1 and gives some additional information. What I now want from a user perspective is straightforward: A user should simply add peers to this subform for the company he is currently viewing. Access should then automatically update tblPeersCompanies_1 and tblPeers_1. The peers really serve no other purpose than to relate them to a company.
However, I struggle implementing this. Adding a new peer to the subform does not work, simply because it is not based on tblPeers_1 and if I enter the information there, Access notices that the peer is not in that table yet. (That is at least what I think the problem is). How can this be achieved though? I don't want the user to open another form, enter the peer first, go back to this form, type the peer again and the other related information. I hope that there must a simple way to do that automatically. Or is this indeed not so simple.
In summary, the question probably can be phrased as: "How to add records to a matching table and a related one-table on the fly in a form?"
Thanks to the great comment by #Remou, I found a solution to this problem. It contais three steps:
Use a combo box as outlined in another SO post
Use this function to automatically enter new records in case the peer is missing. Call this function in the "On Not in List" event
Show other values from tblPeers by linking it to the selected value in the combo box, as explained here
I have to say, this is much harder than I hoped it to be. Let's hope that the learning curve is steep and that it will at least be easy to use for the user and quite robust.
Does anyone have any pointers on how to go about creating a "wizard interface" using Access 2010? I need a sequential set of forms that will be capable of branching the flow based on answers from the user and data found in the database. I have used Access before for some CRUD/Reports type of applications, but in this case I can't seem to wrap my head around how to get started on such a complex machine.
Before anyone suggests it, I cannot use anything but Access due to client requirements.
I feel your pain ... working with Access gets so difficult where there are complex requirements.
Gather and document the requirements
Make sure you've teased out every possible wrinkle and contingency from the client, and put it into a flow chart or something.
Extract the models
Figure out what models are being used -- customers, addresses, vendors, products, etc. These will have to be created as tables or adapted to existing ones.
Extract other variables
What could potentially change over time and/or what will the client want to be able to change via an admin screen? You'll have to decide which of these variables to put into tables, and which are ok in the code (form logic and/or VBA).
Design the tables for the wizard views
I imagine you'll want a wizard screens table, where each row corresponds to a step; each should have (other than an id column) a previous screen column, and a form name or form template name column. You'll need a second table choices with a many-to-one foreign key linking back to screens; each row here will correspond to a possible outcome of the view, and the target next step in the wizard.
Design the forms
Finally, design the forms corresponding to each wizard step or template, pulling data from the structures in 1-4 as needed.
I am making a semi-simple web application for my mother using php, mysql, and javascript.
She is a teacher, and this wil allow her to manage various components of her lesson plans.
For each component there is a table, and for each component that can contain another component there is another table that holds the relationship. (That table type has two columns each has a foreign key to the related tables)
I am nearly done, but she now wants to allow her friends to use this, I don't care too much about sql injection, but I would like to implement User Control so that only users that create a component can view and edit that component.
I also want them to be able to make public components, so that users can copy components to their own dataset.
My question To implement the user control should I have each user have there own database instant, or should each table have an owner column and column for public/private status, or is there another alternative that I have not thought of.
An issue that I see is that it would require additional mysql query when creating the relations between components because I would need to check that both components user tag matches the current user.
Any feedback/suggestions are helpful
Update The only people using/accessing this will be other teachers, that will be developing their own lesson plans
I would certainly implement this within the same database. Having a different database for each user is not a good solution in this case. Think, for example, how you would build a search function if each user's data is in a separate database will clashing UIDs. It would be a nightmare. Separate databases work where each database serves a separate application and there are precisely zero relations between the data in different databases.
So that brings you on to how to implement it. This will depend on your model. Will each lesson plan only ever have, for example, one and only one owner? If so, then adding that info to the components table might work. Or else you might need a separate table to define ownership and hence access to the different components. Either way, I would make sure the access logic is decoupled and encapsulated in your application to make sure you can change it in the future. Imagine for example you start with a simple, single-owner model but the site grows and grows and soon groups of people all need ownership/edit access to components.
I have a lookup list that is used in a custom solution to provide information about a specific location. This list includes columns of type People and Groups.
Given the quantity of locations that will be available I'd be very keen that the list is maintained and imported from an Access database. I do something similar with my configurations list which works great. It just means I can rapidly deploy all configurations across different environments.
The problem I have encountered is that it doesn't seem to handle columns of data type People and Groups. The lookup is not available in Access. From what little i have found online, I'd not even sure if this is possible. This article suggests that Access automatically creates a link to the USerInfo table. Even with this link, I cannot look up values.
Can someone please let me know if this is possible or a limitation and cannot be achieved when linking a list to Access?
This absolutely possible, and MS Access should automatically link any dependent lists when you import a parent list that has lookups.
Check to make sure you don't have multiple UserInfo lists linked, like UserInfo1, UserInfo2, etc. If so, delete all your linked SP lists and relink.
We're developing a system to replace an old application from our clients.
Actually there are many entities (like merchants, salesmen, products, etc) that must have a manual assigned ID -so they can be integrated with other existing systems. i.e. accounting.
We think the best solution is simply allow the user to assign the entities IDs manually when the entity is being created; we're going to suggest him the next available ID, and the user will be able to change it if they want. no updates allowed! (muahahaha)
We'll be glad to hear your thoughts about. Pros / Cons
Thanks in advance :)
PD: Do you know any documentation about? -Entities and IDs-
UPDATES
We think there should be cases when this applies and do not. so...
Additionally there are cases when the client literally wants that a given entity has an Id they bring. organization internal codes I think.
Never, ever, ever let the user have access to assign or create the underlying objects identifier. These must be system maintained.
Imagine the nightmare of trying to figure out which entity a related entity actually goes with in the event that the user picks an id that is already in use.
Instead, you should have a regular entity ID of some type (int, guid, whatever) that the system assigns and uses for links to all dependent objects. Then have an "external" id of some sort that the user can put their own identifier in.
Maybe that relates to an external system in some way, maybe not. Point is, you'll be able to maintain your own consistency regardless of what they do.
What is usually done is to specify your own, usually hidden, identifier that is used internally. Then create a second identifier that the user can use as a separate data field. Also, you can get into a bit of a concurrency trouble if you try to suggest the next ID.
I guess this boils down to a separation of concern issues. If you've been developing apps for more than a year you should already know why you need an object identifier in your rdb's, if your users need to concern themselves with assigning and/or managing your underlying object identifiers then you have a design problem, and this problem is that you are mixing data access/storage concerns with business logic. As others already said the best approach is to have two identifiers, one that is transparent to the user and used internally in your app and the other to be used in your integration processes.
I've seen a similar case while working with retailers, there's an id and a product's SKU, the sku itself could be the id yet to allow for a good design we have both.