Question

Aurena Access - what scope of rights for the end-user ?

  • 27 April 2022
  • 5 replies
  • 123 views

Userlevel 1
Badge +6

Hi,

If I add (as an IFS administrator) the "FND_WEBENDUSER_MAIN" permission for an end user (because the end user wants to access Aurena) then I see he has too much access.

 

I want the user to only will have access to the views and functions the same what he has on the IEE ifs application.

 

 

So how can I give an end user so that he only has access to certain features in Aurena IFS ?

 


5 replies

Userlevel 5
Badge +15

Hi @USER_IFS 

 

This is tough problem to enfoce changing predefined permission sets. Look at this post:

 

Userlevel 1
Badge +6

Ok, thank you, but I can’t enter the link 🤔 

And I wasn’t going to change the predefined permission set. Iam looking for other solution/idea. 

So, maybe just I add the FND_WEBRUNTIME in the structure specyfic permission set ( which I created especially for the end-user).

 

 

 

 

Userlevel 5
Badge +15

Just export FND_WEBENDUSER_MAIN Permission Set(I suppose it is possible), rename itinside XML and import again with new name. Then change it as You wish and use new one Permission Set as basic role. Do not forget about FND_WEBRUNTIME as a subset.

Userlevel 6
Badge +18

The issue is that grants in Aurena largely use Projections, which do nothing in IEE, so my guess is that your user doesn’t have them granted today.  So you’re going to have to identify the projections used by Aurena that the user won’t have in IEE in order to get them to their ‘normal’ functionality. 

Since IEE and Aurena are not a 1:1 in terms of controls I don’t think there’s an easy ‘migrate’ function to convert from one into the other (I could be wrong), and you’ll need to manually set up additional security grants for the user specifically for Aurena.

HTH,

Nick

Userlevel 7
Badge +21

I have seen the ‘overkill’ myself in some area's as well in Aurena. As far as I can remember the answer to solve this would be to include extra layers using Context.

I do hope I'm wrong here as this takes the security settings to a next level of complexity.

Reply