MIS Systems Thread, System Manager 7 in Technical; Originally Posted by GREED
Right... so does it address the fact that giving a permission to something breaks somethign else?
30th March 2011, 01:19 PM #31
LOL if only it was that simple.
Originally Posted by GREED
30th March 2011, 01:26 PM #32
- Rep Power
I'm not quite sure what GREED means by giving a permission breaks something else but it is much easier to view and change the permissions for a group. And they are introducing the concept of Capita providing a 'template' group, eg Class Teachers, which can then be cloned and permissions altered. It is then saved as a custom group.
I was on the testing yesterday as well and came away quite pleased with what I had seen in System Manager 7 and also relieved that we don't use SLG here as the problems with parent users and contacts seems to be a major one.
30th March 2011, 03:09 PM #33
SysMan6 used to cause issues in the past but it has been pretty stable for the past couple of years. It just would not do everything that it ought to do.
The issue of Parent/Contact DB Users has been around since SLG was released (and maybe even with its predecessor).
System7 is able to resolve these issues!
30th March 2011, 03:21 PM #34
@34 - cloning groups has always been possible, unless they are making it easier. You've always been able to make your own group, then add a pre-defined role, and remove the bits you don't want, or add them as the case may be...
30th March 2011, 04:58 PM #35
- Rep Power
Vik, the idea of classifying the Capita supplied groups as a template group is to stop the problem whereby users, having modified one of the existing groups, had any changes they had made overwritten by a SIMS upgrade. All cloned groups will become custom groups so will not be affected when the the upgrade updates the template groups. I should have made this clearer in the original post.
30th March 2011, 05:02 PM #36
Yes, mostly what Sivadam said is what I meant, but it is good to know that has settled down recently.
Oh and Mike, I notice we are getting festive again!?
[EDIT: Before I get a negative rep, I am asking the question, not encouraging arguments as was previously noted when I asked! :/]
30th March 2011, 09:14 PM #37
Festive? Maybe others didn't think so ..............
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm! One wonders where all that posting went ............. And why ............ ?
2nd April 2011, 01:07 AM #38
It was clear, what i'm saying is that it has always been possible, that is nothing new. If you clone a group, it is a clone and therefore unaffected by any SIMS upgrade. Making a new group and adding e.g. the class teacher role, will protect it from upgrades, and can then be tweaked. Essentially all default groups have always been templates, that you can make custom groups from. I'm not sure i see any difference / advantage here. Unless what you are saying is that the default groups are now protected, and cannot be tweaked. This i can see would stop people removing / adding a permission only to find it reverted back after an upgrade.
Originally Posted by number34
3rd April 2011, 01:56 PM #39
@34 - i notice somebody on SupportNet state that for a cloned group, based on a template group, that when there is a system upgrade makes a change to the template group, this change will propogate to the cloned group. At least that is what i understood. Is it that, perhaps, that you were referring to?
I still don't think it's a great feature, as the idea of cloned/custom groups is that you want to control the permissions, not find that something is added automatically. Plus where those permissions are dependent, it could cause a problem. I have had occasions when a permission has been added such as access to homepage panels, and they wouldn't work until i manually added them, however i was happy with that, as it meant i was aware of the change, and could choose to apply it or not.
I'd prefer a bit more clarity in the permissions, and the linking, and perhaps some detailed notes on any changes that occur during updates.
If anyone can clarify further that would be helpful..
4th April 2011, 01:09 PM #40
- Rep Power
The issue we have had with custom groups not being upgraded is that when new functionality is included that depends on new or changed access rights for a group, this will often result in users getting errors in SIMS until the custom groups are manually changed with the new permissions, and Capita don't tell you what the permission changes that are needed are!
Originally Posted by vikpaw
Until Capita support custom groups my feeling is they should be withdrawn completely (Of course it would be much better if Capita did support them) I'm sure this will get raised at the second UAT session tomorrow which I am attending.
4th April 2011, 01:23 PM #41
Please raise the issue at the session tomorrow. Custom groups should be supported (i.e. they shouldn't go wrong) although we can't help with groups that you have created and tell you why they aren't working. Crashes are a completely different matter.
4th April 2011, 01:26 PM #42
Exactly my point splatthecat, so please do raise it. That's why i would like some more detailed notes on changes that are made, as i can't see that a blanket upgrade to a template and thus it's child clones is helpful. Especially if it's going to add / take away functions, it could completely overwrite the purpose of the cloned group.
There's debate going on in SupportNet at the moment about access to Next of Kin details, and it's very troublesome.
I think anyone that uses custom groups should just be told that it's at their own risk. I'm happy to manipulate as required. I doubt very much the changes will block much that is already working, it's more likely just going to restrict access to some new functionality.
4th April 2011, 01:33 PM #43
One example Phil, is as i said, when homepage panels were introduced it was a basic permission for all. As i don't use any built-in groups, this was not available to my staff until i added it. However it was fine, and luckily obvious during testing.
Originally Posted by PhilNeal
Some permissions issues are complex, such as the need to have permission to view Next of Kin details for staff, in order to view their timetables, even though it doesn't show the NoK in the timetable! This is an old example, so it most likely fixed now, but you get the idea. Things like that can cause an unknown error / crash which can be unexplainable.
It would be good to have a change matrix for the permission structure at each upgrade. Not just the perms spreadsheet, much more granular. That way, anyone wishing to take advantage can see simply what has been added (or removed) and where. Then we'd be able to troubleshoot our own issues. At the moment i think the blanket answer is that we can't be helped as it's too complex, and this is right, especially considering how long it takes on the current sysman to just load the full list of permissions (couple of minutes for me.)
4th April 2011, 07:58 PM #44
See you tomorrow
Originally Posted by splattthecat
4th April 2011, 08:45 PM #45
Good Luck you guys. I am sure you will enjoy it!
Don't forget to ask for the retention of the Backup routine - for us Sysmen that may wanna produce a backup for SupportNet and UAT without having to rely on the Tekkies having to use Solus! Yep! I raised it last week!
By HMCTech in forum Wireless Networks
Last Post: 3rd March 2010, 03:40 PM
By timbo343 in forum MIS Systems
Last Post: 12th September 2009, 03:29 PM
By Alan_R in forum Educational IT Jobs
Last Post: 9th September 2009, 01:26 PM
By westleya in forum Windows Server 2008
Last Post: 1st April 2009, 03:12 PM
By dryhammer in forum Windows Server 2008
Last Post: 25th May 2008, 12:45 AM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)