User Module not available in SugarBPM / Process Definitions?

Hi Martin Neitzke,

As far as I can tell with a quick look at the code, that module list consists of:

• Studio-enabled modules
• Modules that are not studio-enabled but have a vardef exception defined

The Users module is in Studio, so I'm not certain why it fails the first check. I tried to enable it with the vardef exception, but that didn't work. I tested the exception with another module (BusinessCenters) and confirmed it worked there. For BusinessCenters, I created a PHP file in:

./custom/Extension/modules/BusinessCenters/Ext/Vardefs/

The file had the following contents:

<?php

$dictionary['BusinessCenter']['processes']['enabled'] = true;

After a quick repair, the module showed in the list when creating a process definition. I followed the same method for Users, but it didn't work. I'm assuming there may be something unique (or hard-coded) preventing the Users module from showing in SugarBPM. 

Maybe someone else has been successful or can pick up with what I've done to find a way to expose it for BPM definitions.

Chris

Chris Raffle,

As you probably know by now, curiosity always gets the best of me, especially when the question is about something I've not "played" with yet. So I was exploring where processes is defined/blocked in the Users module and the only mention of it is in the is_admin field, which I assume is a field-level control:

        'is_admin' => array(
            'name' => 'is_admin',
            'vname' => 'LBL_IS_ADMIN',
            'type' => 'bool',
            'default' => '0',
            'studio' => array('listview' => false, 'searchview'=>false, 'related' => false),
            // Remove from SugarBPM
            // To add finer grain validation, you could do something like this
            // 'processes' => array(
            //    'isCurrentUserAdmin',
            //),
            // This would tell the field to be pushed through an additional validation
            // step when being fetched for relationships
            'processes' => false,
            'idm_mode_disabled' => true,
        ) ,    

What surprised me though, give your test, is that it doesn't look like even BusinessCenters has a processes vardef (v12.0 Enterprise) defined other than within a field, which confuses me.
 
So where would the 'processes' vardef be defined in the first place?

FrancescaS

Chris Raffle,

As you probably know by now, curiosity always gets the best of me, especially when the question is about something I've not "played" with yet. So I was exploring where processes is defined/blocked in the Users module and the only mention of it is in the is_admin field, which I assume is a field-level control:

        'is_admin' => array(
            'name' => 'is_admin',
            'vname' => 'LBL_IS_ADMIN',
            'type' => 'bool',
            'default' => '0',
            'studio' => array('listview' => false, 'searchview'=>false, 'related' => false),
            // Remove from SugarBPM
            // To add finer grain validation, you could do something like this
            // 'processes' => array(
            //    'isCurrentUserAdmin',
            //),
            // This would tell the field to be pushed through an additional validation
            // step when being fetched for relationships
            'processes' => false,
            'idm_mode_disabled' => true,
        ) ,    

What surprised me though, give your test, is that it doesn't look like even BusinessCenters has a processes vardef (v12.0 Enterprise) defined other than within a field, which confuses me.
 
So where would the 'processes' vardef be defined in the first place?

FrancescaS

Hi Francesca,

As you found, there are field-level definitions to block those elements from being used in a process definition. As far as I could tell, there are no modules natively using the exception at the module level to enable it for SugarBPM, but the code allows for it. That is why I was able to set a definition for BusinessCenters via an extension vardef.

Chris