Hi,

I really dont know it this is a bug or what, but it seems like strange behaviour to me.

I use cb_subs to create several access levels. I have labors and admins. On the labors tab there are several fields, also some fields that are not visible or editable by the labors themself.

Scenario:

Administrator goes to a users profile, edit profile, change a "not labor visible field" (i.e multiselect) and save it.

The the user himself login later, edit his profile, change some other fields and save.

The value set by the Administrator in the "not labor visible field" is now reset to "" / blank.

How come? Is this how its suppose to behave? Anyone else experienced something similar?

Kristian-

Post edited by: krileon, at: 2010/06/21 16:33

I see.

I cant achieve the level of detail I need with a simle on / off switch (privacy plugin) as some plans can see the protected field, but not edit, and some plans can both see and edit, and some cant do nothing (no see - no edit).

Its a bit irritating since all the administrators work of setting those fields are getting wasted when the users login and the fields get blanked out :/

The strange thing is that if seems to work (not blanking) if I protect the field itself. But so far is have only worked on selectfields with number values. Not multiselect and string. I have to investigate this further.

Thanks for you reply. I will post any findings for other to reference if I find something interesting on this issue.

-Kristian

Hi.

I have investigated this issue further and found out that as long as I let cb_subs controll the fields availability too it works as (I) expected.

So if I want to hide / restrict a field and retain its value upon frontend profileowner edit I have to hide / restrict the field itself, not only the tab its placed on. I can also restrict the tab thus make it possible to mix fieldaccess and tabaccess on a very detailed level

So I guess its not a bug as you stated in the initial reply to my post, but just a matter of "no inheritance of access level from tabs to fields" which is probably the most "correct" sense to solve this sort of thing.

-Kristian.