Timeline for Hide a Field From ONE User
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 29, 2017 at 20:06 | comment | added | Eric | Right - OP never stated if they needed update/edit access. we are both assuming one way or the other. if it is a ready only field then formula would be better option. This whole thing is comical anyway as no matter what you do you will have to edit the profile. Its pointless really. Still adding view encrypted permissions is not the way to go, especially when it is clear the OP potentially does not understand the implications on data security | |
| Apr 29, 2017 at 20:04 | comment | added | Scott Walker | Formula field handles output but not input. You still have to have the original field there for input. So you still have the same problem for removing read access from the other user. You can't remove with a permission set. If you're going to update the profile anyways, better to do the other solution. | |
| Apr 28, 2017 at 17:54 | comment | added | Eric | My solution is the same as yours just with a different field. Yours has to create a encrypted field, mine just creates a formula field. If you read my comment carefully there really is no way NOT to modify the profile if you consider updating a field's visibility as a profile update. | |
| Apr 28, 2017 at 17:14 | comment | added | Scott Walker | It's not the best way, but your solution still doesn't meet the don't edit the profile requirements. Also, if you have just a formula field on the layout it prevents input. The best way to handle it is what was suggested elsewhere, but that doesn't meet the requirement of not editing the profile or creating a new one. | |
| Apr 27, 2017 at 16:39 | comment | added | Eric | Then they create a formula field to show the value if not that user and if that user display nothing. Then remove permission from the original field. That would be a better solution than view encrypted. Either way they have to update field permissions (adding a field etc) and ultimately update the profile (via adding or editing field permissions) so there is really no way around it. Providing view encrypted permissions is not they way to go IMHO | |
| Apr 27, 2017 at 15:33 | comment | added | Scott Walker | The other responses here are better solutions for sure, but if their requirements are to not be able to change the profile at all OR create a new one then they don't meet the need. I, for one, would agree that it's better to ensure that the requirements are correct, but if they are, then the other answers don't meet the need even if they are considered best practice. This fulfills their requirements (though it's not ideal) where others did not. | |
| Apr 27, 2017 at 15:05 | comment | added | Eric | @SushmaTiwaari This makes no sense. If you are going to do that then remove the access from the profile and use a per set to allow visibility like the other answer suggests and it is the same process. Adding permissions to view the encrypted field also allows those profiles to view other encrypted fields. This is not a good resolution at all and has side effects that are not what the OP intended. Surprised it was accepted. You refusal to modify the profile to do this properly is confounding | |
| Apr 27, 2017 at 14:58 | vote | accept | Sushma Tiwaari | ||
| Apr 27, 2017 at 14:56 | history | answered | Scott Walker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |