Would like to know under what security context does Process Builder run? Is it possible for a user to create/edit a record that launches Process Builder that updates another record they don't have the right to update? If it is possible, what happens? Does the user get an error, the sys admin, or nobody is notified.
In other words, is it possible for a user ti launch a Process Builder process that updates some data they don't have the right to update?
Thanks a lot!
However, if a Process is launching a Flow (which runs in system mode), the whole automation will ru in the system mode.
Hope that makes sense.
Every user needs read/write access to all Leads, but due to our Pardot setup I need to restrict OWD for Leads to Private to exclude our Pardot Connector User. New users will need access to all Leads by default whatever their role (across different departments), and without changing additional settings.
Our current role setup is used more in conjunction with our managed package app than for record access, as all users have read/write access to all records.
I'm new to Sharing Settings - at the moment I'm looking at creating a public group containg all roles except the Pardot Connector User (which doesn't exist as a role currently so I'd have to create this), and using a sharing rule to give all access to all Leads to all of these roles.
Is this best practice? Is there a better way to do this using roles?
Sales reps are owners of the accounts and they cannot see each-other's accounts.
The sales support people are assigned to the accounts through a custom filed.
Is there any way to limit the visibility to the accounts for the support people same as well?
Is the custom field that is used part of a criteria based sharing rule? Are you having more than 1 support person assigned to the same account and want to limit their visibility to only accounts for the sales person that they support?
Have you tried account teams? Since it is a 1:1 sales-to-support ratio and the type of access could be controlled for the support personnel as well as limit them to accessing only accounts they are on. Downside to this is I think the sales person would have to manually add the team to each account.
I also think a more automated method might be to put each support & sales personnel into "groups" and then construct a sharing rule for each group based on the owner of the account record (which would be the group). Then assign that sharing rule to each respective support person.
Hope that helps and if someone comes along and sees errors above please help me learn!
What is the use for the record type and where we using it?
(i'm a begginer so have lot of questions in my mind.)
for example : if you are working on an application that manages two business process like you want to manage accounts for two commodities A and B .
You want certain fields and picklist values on Commodity A page and different ones on Commodity B page.
You create 2 record types for Commodity A and B for different picklist to appear on these pages and 2 pagelayouts to control the fields on A and B commodities.
you will assign record type to Page layout i.e for record type A what pagelayout should be displayed,same for B.
Now when you click on Account Tab ,you will have the option to select record type A or B .
You can also control Users who have access to record type A or B or Both in profiles.
Hope you got some idea.
Currently, we do not leverage the role hierarchy structure. We use only a few objects and set the OWD for those objects to private. We then use profiles, sharing rules, and public groups to control object and record access. I am trying to determine whether permission sets would allow us to:
a. reduce the number of profiles we use
b. reduce the number of public groups we use
My questions are:
1. Can we use permission sets to restrict access compared to the profile settings, or only open up access from the profile baseline?
2. In this location: Permission sets > Apps > Object Settings > select the object > field permissions, does the edit permission give the permission set assignee permission to edit field values on records she has access to, but does not own? What does this edit permission do, exactly?
3. What is the relationship between public group membership and permission set assignment? It seems to me that both grant individual users (or groups of users) access to data that they could not access based on profile alone. The way they work differently, however, is still vague to me-- even after reading the help materials on SF. What are the benefits of using each?
4. Is it possible to provide access to report and dashboard folders through permission sets? Currently, if a user building a report folder selects "this folder is accessible only by the following users" the options to select from are role, role and subordinates, and public groups. We only use public groups from this drop down list. We would like to use permission sets instead of public groups (or roles) to grant access to report and dashboard folders. Is it possible to add permission sets to that drop down list?
Related to the above question, I tested a work around for granting access to a report folder: Permission sets > System > System Permissions > enabling create and customize reports, run reports, report builder, and manage dashboard permissions. Then, in Permission sets > Apps > Object Settings > (example custom object), I enabled access to the XYZ record type.
I assigned the permission set to a user. I then checked to see if my user with the permission set had access to the XYZ report folder. The user did not have access. I then added my user to the XYZ public group and confirmed that the XYZ public group had access to the XYZ report folder. I tested my user's access to the XYZ report folder, and my user did have access. It seems, therefore, that the only way to grant report/dashboard folder access using permission sets would be to add permission sets to the options in the "this folder is accessible only by the following users" drop down list.
Clarification on any/all of this is much appreciated!
2. The edit permission in this location allows users to edit field values on records they have access to. Record access is determined through sharing settings.
3. The short answer is they give access to different things. As I alluded to in my answer to #2, permissions and sharing settings are two separate areas of security. Permissions determine the kinds of records users can create, read, edit or delete. Sharing settings determine which individual records users can view and edit in each object. So the difference in permission sets and public groups is that permission sets allow you to grant additional permissions to specific users, whereas public groups are used in sharing rules to grant access to specific records.
4. To my knowledge, it is not possible to provide access to report and dashboard folders through permission sets.
I'm looking into the TLS 1.0 encryption switch off and I can see that for production orgs the date is 4th March 2017 but for login.salesforce.com is not yet known.
What is the difference between these two? I thought production org would be login.salesforce.com?
This might be a silly question as I don't have much experience in setting up SSO or redirects. But here goes.
How does one get a nicer URL for single sign on?
Instead of: [sitename].my.salesforce.com
How could I get: salesforce.[sitename].com ?
Do I still need to create the custom my domain in salesforce? Then have the url created by our web admins to redirect to the [sitename].my.salesforce.com then the SSO page?
I have the right email and password, but then it asks for a verficaiton code, which has been sent to the incorrect email (@example.com). No one else has access to this sandbox so is there a way to work around it when I can't even login?
Specifically we're on MC.S7. where is this located?