Improved: Agreement Roles - VIEW permissions (OFBIZ-12518)

[PierreSmits]

Currently, a user with only 'VIEW' permissions, as demonstrated in trunk demo with userId = auditor, accessing the Agreement Roles screen, sees editable fields and/or triggers (to requests) reserved for users with 'CREATE' or 'UPDATE' permissions.

To see/test: https://localhost:8443/accounting/control/EditAgreementRoles?agreementId=8000

modified:

• AgreementScreens.xml - restructured screen EditAgreementRoles to work with permissions
• AgreementForms.xml - added grid AgreementRoles for users with VIEW permissions additional cleanup

[sonarqubecloud[bot]]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication

[mbrohl]

Hi Pierre,

thanks for your contribution!

Why did you change the specific field translation labels to common labels, e.g. uiLabelMap.PartyPartyId vs uiLabelMap.CommonParty? The field contains the partyId which makes uiLabelMap.PartyPartyId the correct label. The same applies to PartyRoleTypeId.

Can you please change this back to the specific label, thanks.

[sonarqubecloud[bot]]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication

[JacquesLeRoux]

Hi,

I agree with Michael, but we can do otherwise, reopening

[sonarqubecloud[bot]]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
No data about Coverage
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[PierreSmits]

Hi @JacquesLeRoux

With your label corrections you neglected the aspect that in several other screens (and templates) CommonRole and CommonParty as labels already have been applied in various forms in the codebase.

Are you with your corrections to this pull requests suggesting that contributors should favor archaic dogma over UX improvements?

[JacquesLeRoux]

@PierreSmits,

The reason I agreed with Michael in substance is because now OFBiz is really mature. So if you change a label id you also change the possible translation people have used on their side. I hope it clarifies my position

It was a time that we discussed about labels and their content. Paradoxally in 2009, about partyPartyId label we (French people) decided to replace all "Réf. acteur" by "Acteur". Since then we have also automatically added the names of the party. So it's OK.

I just found that we kept one for MarketingTrackingCodeVisitPartyId because there it makes sense. I could not find the discussion about that but https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-2958 is relevant.