Take the 2-minute tour ×
Salesforce Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Salesforce administrators, implementation experts, developers and anybody in-between. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I need some advice -

Aim – to make a custom field visible on the activity but it should only be visble to someone’s Profile

Can this be done ?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

ROLES in Salesforce are used to govern which RECORDS a user can see, and PROFILES are used for PERMISSIONS (over object types, fields etc.)

It isn't common, or pre-built, to control a specific field access based on a users role. It would be more appropriate to use a different profile and field-level-security (or page layout assignment) to do this.

If you post your overall case scenario, I'd be happy to reconsider this notion if it does not apply!

share|improve this answer
    
Hi This is basic hierarchy within my Org Aim – A activity to be created by “UK insurance Asset” Role, everyone else within that hierarchy should be excluded. If “UK Investment” creates an activity then everyone else could see it FD GL: Distribution Head CH Super User UK Super User UK Institutional UK insurance Asset UK investment UK Performance UK Property UK Retail EU Super User I would like to point out every role has a different profile –  Masond3 Apr 3 at 15:09
    
I have answered my own question, you can make the field visible to certain profiles –  Masond3 Apr 3 at 15:26
1  
@Masond3 You also did that by altering your question, your original question was based on roles. As your answer is pretty much Simon's, you can click the (V) button on the left of his answer to indicate it the answer that helped you most. –  Samuel De Rycke Apr 8 at 12:06

You could create a permission set specifically giving access to those fields, this will allow you to grant access independant of a certain profile.

With a trigger on the User record, you can add the permission set to the user based on the UserRoleId (or query for the role's developername), doing so for the the required role(s).

share|improve this answer
    
Interesting idea, with the trigger. Of course permission sets are also a good option here. Duly voted. –  Simon Lawrence Apr 3 at 16:11

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.