This article shows a common way to check access in Apex with a syntax like:

if (!Schema.sObjectType.Contact.fields.Name.isAccessible()){
    return '';

However, it is very time/space-consuming to check every single field you want to access/update manually one at a time, especially when you are working with tens of fields every time.

I know ESAPI automatically does this check and verifies access to fields but I don't see it commonly used in the community. Why?

And what is the fastest/most efficient way to ensure CRUD/FLS security of an app?

  • 1
    In regards to why more people don't use ESAPI, it looks like a library that would be most useful in package development, which I have never done any of myself. Just a thought. The github project does have a decent following.
    – Adrian Larson
    Jul 20 '16 at 15:47

You could write a helper method for this type of functionality:

public Object flsGet(SObject record, SObjectField field)
    return !field.getDescribe().isAccessible() ? null : record.get(field);

With this reusable method, you can now just one-line the check:

Contact someRecord = [SELECT Name FROM Contact LIMIT 1];
system.debug(flsGet(someRecord, Contact.Name));

If you're really worried about performance, you could write a caching mechanism. You may do more harm than good though. I certainly haven't profiled it. Your code could be structured something like:

public class FLS
    public static Boolean isAccessible(SObjectType sObjectType, SObjectField field)
        return getAccessibleFields(sObjectType).contains(field);

    static Map<SObjectType, Set<SObjectField>> accessible;
    public static Set<SObjectField> getAccessibleFields(SObjectType sObjectType)
        if (accessible == null)
            accessible = new Map<SObjectType, Set<SObjectField>>();
        if (!accessible.containsKey(sObjectType))
            accessible.put(sObjectType, getAccessibleFields(sObjectType));
        return accessible.get(sObjectType);
    static Set<SObjectField> getAccessibleFields(SObjectType sObjectType)
        // implementation should be straightforward

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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