nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

custom roles not being processed correctly within <role_list>

boskovuk

I am trying to restrict the access to a new workflow by using our custom roles.

This is the code that is not being processed correctly - i.e. users with specified custom role, NPArC_Translator, should only be given access to the workflow:
---- see attached file.

The above code is not working. Users with this role, NPArC_Translator, are still not able to access the workflow.

However, if the code is changed to reference 'editor', things are working. Users with this role, NPArC_Translator are given ability to use this workflow (NAW.wft):
---- see attached file.

Why am I not able to use custom role, NPArC_Translator, within element?
What am I missing here?

TIA ...

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Adam Stoller

I am trying to restrict the access to a new workflow by using our custom roles.

This is the code that is not being processed correctly - i.e. users with specified custom role, NPArC_Translator, should only be given access to the workflow:<role_list element="">
---- see attached file.

The above code is not working. Users with this role, NPArC_Translator, are still not able to access the workflow.

However, if <role_list> the code is changed to reference 'editor', things are working. Users with this role, NPArC_Translator are given ability to use this workflow (NAW.wft):<role_list>
---- see attached file.

Why am I not able to use custom role, NPArC_Translator, within <role_list> element?
What am I missing here?

TIA ...

If you're using 671SP1 as your signature indicates, I believe the available_templates.cfg file DTD changed and the code you posted is no longer correct. I suggest you look at the available_templates.cfg.example file - or the available_templates.dtd file.

The fact that it seems to work with OOTB / standard roles using the old syntax is not a major surprise - the new format was largely introduced at the same time as FlexRoles were.

boskovuk

If you're using 671SP1 as your signature indicates, I believe the available_templates.cfg file DTD changed and the code you posted is no longer correct. I suggest you look at the available_templates.cfg.example file - or the available_templates.dtd file.

The fact that it seems to work with OOTB / standard roles using the old syntax is not a major surprise - the new format was largely introduced at the same time as FlexRoles were.

Yest, this is 671SP1 based environment.

Good catch about the new available_templates.cfg definition. I looked at suggested available_templates.cfg.example and other available manuals. The problem is fixed when old way was switched to new (available_templates.cfg).

thanks!

cal.png