"global" row owner rather than using "role"

Hi, based on what was discussed in this thread: Duplicate table with computed columns - #9 by Jeff_Hager

I would like to add this as a “feature request”. I have often had the need to have certain records in a table not protected by row owner, although most/many are. Rather than adding a role to share records from that table to all users who need access to it (row owner arrays can only go so far!), I would like some way to share certain records with a group of people (like a role).

The main problem with roles is that anyone who has a role is considered a private user, and I would quickly exceed my “private user” count. And although I have not experimented with it, I don’t know if roles plays well with row owners (does a role over-ride a row owner setting?).

I’m not sure what you mean by override in this case. If a user’s email or role matches what’s in a row owner column, then they have access to the row.

He want to avoid privete users quota if im reading it right

What I mean is that I have row owners turned on, So if a user’s email doesn’t match the rowowner column will it still allow the record to be seen if they have the correct roll? But in the long run it really wouldn’t really matter, because what I really need is groups of people – “families” would be a good analogy, but it would be used for other things. So each “family group” that uses the application would have access to the same group of records regardless of “row owner” – again, array row owners can only take it so far, and have the added disadvantage of requiring non-Glide tables.

If the row owner column contains either an email and/or a role, and it matches the signed in user’s email and/or role, then yes, they will have access. Really it’s EITHER, OR, or BOTH. You can have row owners set up as an array via a google sheet or you can have multiple individual row owner columns. As long as a user’s email and/or role matches the value in ANY row owner column, then yes, they will have access to that row.

There really isn’t a concept of overriding. The row owner column either matches a user’s email/role, or it does not match. If a row owner column does not contain the user’s email or the user’s role, then they will not have access to the data.

2 Likes

I guess the “role” could be the family or “group” name, but I am left with the same problem that every user with a “role” is a private user. That’s not really the goal of this particular App.

Yeah, I’m not trying to solve your dilemma. Just trying to help clarify how Roles and Emails work with Row Owners.

If they are families then maybe they could share an email :man_shrugging: I really can’t say because I don’t know your app but it’s something to think about.

Only JSON will save you from users limits :wink:

That’s why I said families or groups. Even in a genealogy app, which this is not, no one is going to share an email.

But perhaps think of it as members of different neighborhoods in a city. Or perhaps employees of different franchise locations. I can think of a hundred different uses for groups as opposed to roles.

In this particular app there would be records a user considers his or her own, But then other records to share with other members. At 1st I was thinking global everyone but it occurred to me that perhaps he’d only want to share with a certain group.

It doesn’t seem like such a far fetched concept to me.

What additional functionality would Groups provide, that you don’t already get with Roles?

In all fairness, Roles should be called Groups, because the term Role is confusing.

Yeah, that’s kind of what I was getting at with my question. Based on what David was describing, I couldn’t really tell any difference.

1 Like

Then I really don’t see any logical reason why implementing roles would mean every user is a private user. And then the limit for a non profit team is one hundred users?

But public users is ten thousand. That is why i’m asking for a solution that would involve row owners instead of roles.

It seemed like others were in favor of it when I brought it up a few months ago so I made it a formal request.

So if we had this Groups feature, and it worked in exactly the same way as Roles, and the only difference was that it was free - why would anybody ever use Roles again? :slight_smile:

I don’t know it for a fact, but I’ve always assumed that the reason that users with roles assigned are counted as private users is because Roles is considered a high value feature, and so it should be paid for.

It’s an arbitrary rule as a way for Glide to gauge usefulness of an app. The need for roles alludes to the need for the app to have a business use. It’s not a technical limit. It’s a glide imposed limit.

I don’t agree with it any more than anybody else. It just leads to everybody trying to work around something that should be arbitrarily easy from a technical standpoint.

Roles have there place, but yes, the limits definitely make for a much more complicated app design.

1 Like

And just add to your point, it seems like the value added is being done with updates now. So if I have an app with relatively low usage or with even readonly usage and five thousand users not targeted to businesses, and to be clear Glide does have a nonprofit plan, then the arbitrariness is even more keenly felt. I’d be fine not using groups if there was a way to do it with row owners.