You are viewing limited content. For full access, please sign in.

Discussion

Discussion

Feature Suggestion - Do not allow groups to be named "Everyone" or don't allow 2 groups with the same name in general

Self-Hosted Administration
Updated 2 hours ago
posted 18 hours ago

This is going to be a rare situation but it sure was confusing. A customer had added the Everyone group to a process and wondered why everyone did not have access.

Well someone was able to create a Laserfiche group named "Everyone" in Admin console and in Forms it looks almost exactly the same, except the text in the username column for the built-in group is different.

In normal circumstances we can not have 2 groups with the same name and I think the same should be applied for the name Everyone including the built-in group. At least make them name it something like Everyone2 so that it stands out if they are going to do it.

0 0
replied 12 hours ago

Hi Chad,

"Everyone" is the display name for Forms built in every one group; the group identifier name is "_everyone_group".

Anyway you could still create group named "_everyone_group" in LFS so I agree this issue did exist.

However, we cannot limit user from creating groups named like that. Possible solution was to show the Forms built in group in a different style than LFS groups. What do you think?

0 0
replied 2 hours ago

That would work as well. The one they created actually stands out more when they type "everyone" because it says "Everyone, Everyone" rather than "Everyone, _everyone_group"

0 0
replied 2 hours ago

I think showing the Forms built in group in a different style is a good stopgap solution but is it not possible to have LF define some user/group names as reserved? Similar to how certain words are reserved in SQL?  The system could simply display an error message to the user attempting to create the user/group,  that this name is reserved by the LF platform itself.  I assume there is already code that determines if a user/group already exists and prevents the creation of a duplicate, it seems like a 'reserve check' branch wouldn't be a huge ask.

0 0
You are not allowed to follow up in this post.

Sign in to reply to this post.

Details
Related Posts
Loading ...