Please remove invalid attachment. This is the true one
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
salman mp wrote:
> In workflow permissions, when someone has multiple roles, suppose for a desired field, at least one rule is 'empty' (means default permission), and one is 'required'.
> We expect this field to be required when editing, but it does not.

I don't think it is a defect. In my understanding, an empty value does not mean that there are no *permissions*, but means there are no *restrictions*. In other words, there are all permissions.

In the case you have illustrated, the user has all permissions, so the field must not be marked as required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go MAEDA wrote:

> I don't think it is a defect. In my understanding, an empty value does not mean that there are no *permissions*, but means there are no *restrictions*. In other words, there are all permissions.
>
> In the case you have illustrated, the user has all permissions, so the field must not be marked as required.

I think in this case it is necessary to display the field as required, because it seems that the priority of "required" should be more than "no restriction" and the priority of "no restriction" should be more than "read only".

Note that when a user has multiple roles, he or she should have the highest permissions set on each field. Is that right?

Now (implemented):
<pre>read_only + required -> required</pre>
Based on that, we expect:
<pre>
no-restriction + required -> required
no-restriction + read_only -> no-restriction
</pre>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------