New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Not many groups on maintenance #396
Comments
We have https://github.com/OCA/maintenance/tree/15.0/maintenance_security for having more granular control. |
But it only filters menus, isn't it, Would be right to add all this permissions there? |
I think 1st option is safer one. cc: @Borruso |
I think the module can be extended to add more groups. |
Yes, create new module is better one. |
cc @victoralmau didn't we do something similar? |
I can create a new module, but having several strategies for the same goal seems a bad decision IMO. I would prefer to find a point of agreement in order to simplify all the flows in a single one at some point |
I didn't know |
IMO there is confusion (especially with module names). My conclusions:
|
It has no sense to depend on base_maintenance_group:
|
When we use maintenance, we only find two groups:
base.group_user
maintenance.group_equipment_manager
This is obviously not enough. What I would recommend:
base.group_user
maintenance.group_equipment_manager
There is a module for something similar on OCA, but it is breaking maintenance logic for several reasons:
This is not fitted for a big company with several teams on different areas. For example, I have two teams, one for Building Maintenance and another for IT. We don't want to mix issues between them, but users might be able to create issues on both teams.
I can see two options:
WDYT?
@astirpe @MiquelRForgeFlow [I add you because you were involved at some point with this module]
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: