I am trying to upgrade a package in a subscriber org. This org has a locally created custom object, Event__c.

I get the following error message:

Missing Organization Feature: Event__c.Sharing Custom Object Records Package install error There are problems that prevent this package from being installed.

The new version of the package has a brand new custom object, nsPrefix_Event_c.

From reading around, I believe that this message is saying that the new Event object is private, so private sharing settings must be present. And yet this is a brand new object so I can't see why it would fail there. This is a package that has already been installed successfully many times.

The only possibility I can think of is that SFDC gets confused between Event_c (Controlled By Parent) and nsPrefix_Event__c (Private) and thinks they are the same object. Could this be happening here?

2 Answers 2


If the custom object's name is Event__c, then yes, SF can get "confused" with the API name. You can log a case to get more details, but if you change the API name you might be able fix this. Give it a try.


SFDC Case Response

I am following up your case number xxxxxxx.

Please be advise that I consulted our Backline Engineer and he identified that this currently reported as a known issue (Bug). Also, this issue has been reported on R&D team and they are still reviewing the final details but please know that currently, there are no tentative date for the fix at this time.

For the interim please use the workaround by changing the sharing settings.

We do apologize for the inconvenience regarding this concern.

The solution initially provided by SFDC support was to: 1. You can make the Event_c sharing settings to private BEFORE you install the package. THEN change it back to its original state (Controlled by Parent) once done installing.


  1. Rename the object Event_c because it is not recommended to name custom object the same as standard Event object name.

A few comments
- We can't change sharing settings from Controlled By Parent since it is the detail of a master-detail relationship
- Asking the client to change the API Name of one of their local objects is absurd since there can be thousands of dependencies.
- "it is not recommended to name custom object the same as standard Event object name" <- the issue here is not with the standard Event object, it is with a locally created Event custom object and a package Event custom object. I would love to know how they think we can enforce this "recommendation".

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .