Territory Security logic - where located

Epicor ERP 10
1

We have given our sales folks access to the Salesperson WB Tracker. The menu item behind it is SalespersonWorkBenchTracker.dll. However when I go to dashboards, I see only Salesperson Workbench.

We would like to create s second dashboard, with different information, that has the same security rules as the Salesperson Workbench tracker. Where can I find the implementation of the security rules? I made a copy of the SalesPersonWorkbench so that I could poke through it, but have found nothing. Thus far, I have tried the the following:

  1. About half the z queries in the WB tracker (am still going through them)
  2. In the tracker itself

I am assuming that I am looking for criteria that has something to do with whether the current user is an authorized user of a specific workforce ID, but I have not yet come across anything like that.

Any ideas? Thanks.

2

DB security related to sales info is heavily influenced by Territories. If you’re using Territories, you might have hit some impassable security issues.

3

We are using territories. I just want to be able to take the same security logic and apply it to another dashboard, but I can’t see where the security logic is to even read it.

4

We don’t use territories. I’m only familiar with their impact on data access, from posts I’ve seen on here.

I may be wrong but those security rules are at the DB level. Yo may have to make the dashboards BAQ in such a way, that it inherits those rules.

1 Like
5

From my experience, if you use BAQs or Business objects, the framework just handles it. If you’re going to the database via dbContext and code then you’re on your own. A BAQ definitely respects territory (and plant, and company, and tenant) rules.

6

As long as you include the Customer table into your BAQ, then the normal territory logic will be used. Epicor applies additional security logic automatically to certain tables, which automatically includes the customer table as one of those tables.

3 Likes
7

That’s the piece I was missing. Did not know it was enforced, if not done so explicitly.

Thanks.