Disallow Clients To Edit Some Fields From The Client Area

[swerlo]

Hi,

 

Sorry if this is somewhere able but I do not see it.

I do not like that clients are able to edit all the fields. We should be able to set fields like 'first name' 'last name' 'email' as not editable for clients from the client area).

I would like this to be as the option for admins to configure which fields aren't editable.

 

Eventually if the client really have to change one of these fields they would need to open a ticket and the admin can do this for them.

 

Thanks.

 

[Michael]

Fantastic request +1

[swerlo]

yes I think so. I saw this at WHMCS.

[RebornWebs]

+1 for this idea from me also. I think it will be a great thing to have

[PeterHushkin]

+1 from me, but would we be able to set what fields are uneditable

[electric]

Yes, this is something we would also like to see.  Admin should be able to set which fields are non-editable.  (Make them all editable by default.)

 

Maybe also link this to groups, so only certain group can edit certain fields, etc...

[Ken]

+1

[Alexander Orlov]

This is something I would find useful myself maybe limit this to groups as we have business customers that have credit and we don't want them changing their contact details like their address without informing us of their contact details.

[swerlo]

After submitting the feature request, what time is necessary to be promoted into the system? And how do we know if something is going to be accepted? 

 

It would be much better if we have the appraisal from the developers when the feature would be implemented, especially when those are just small tweaks. 

[swerlo]

Could this request get some kind of priority?

I submitted as a feature request, but I also see it as a security option. 

[Michael]

Could this request get some kind of priority?

I submitted as a feature request, but I also see it as a security option. 

 

Need a CORE-number first 

[swerlo]

Need a CORE-number first 

Thanks CubicWebs. The activity I'm seeing from you, it would be great if there's a half of it from the developers. I'm getting disappointed a little bit here, not much about the software, but about the support on the forum.

I do understand there's some procedure, but I think it's not the thing I should care about. From my point of view they are free to organize their business as they think it's the best. My intention isn't to sound rough, but it's more than 20 days since I submitted this request and now I really need to know will it be implemented and in which time frame.

 

Once more time, I politely ask, can someone of the development crew answer this?

[Michael]

Thanks CubicWebs. The activity I'm seeing from you, it would be great if there's a half of it from the developers. I'm getting disappointed a little bit here, not much about the software, but about the support on the forum.

I do understand there's some procedure, but I think it's not the thing I should care about. From my point of view they are free to organize their business as they think it's the best. My intention isn't to sound rough, but it's more than 20 days since I submitted this request and now I really need to know will it be implemented and in which time frame.

 

Once more time, I politely ask, can someone of the development crew answer this?

 

Haha I'm glued to the forums 24/7 when I can get on it, the devs are hard at work on 3.1 I believe, so they can't come on the forum as much as me. However I'll alert Paul to view this thread for you .

[Paul]

There is already a task, CORE-547 to hide optional fields from the client area and order pages. It is tentatively scheduled for 3.2, but may be pushed back.

 

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're asking for though.. this would allow you to set, from optional fields, which ones not to display at all. Are you wanting the fields rather to be displayed only as read-only?

 

Feature requests aren't always answered right away, sometimes we purposely let them run on to gauge support. As we plan future releases, we also revisit the feature request threads on the forums.

[swerlo]

@Paul Interesting that I have to interpret only to you in other words, everyone else seems to understand. Yes, it's the 'read-only' request.

 

Personally I do not like the dynamic around the Blesta, my fault is that I needed more than a month to realize this. In many ways it lacks features, which wouldn't be a problem if this is the first year of the development.  It actually looks to me like it's in the first year of development, but as I understand it's there from the 2007.

 

While this is tentatively coming from the frustration it is also a friendly feedback.

The lack of this feature isn't the only reason I will probably be forced to look for the alternative software. Wish you all the best. 

[Michael]

@Paul Interesting that I have to interpret only to you in other words, everyone else seems to understand. Yes, it's the 'read-only' request.

 

Personally I do not like the dynamic around the Blesta, my fault is that I needed more than a month to realize this. In many ways it lacks features, which wouldn't be a problem if this is the first year of the development.  It actually looks to me like it's in the first year of development, but as I understand it's there from the 2007.

 

While this is tentatively coming from the frustration it is also a friendly feedback.

The lack of this feature isn't the only reason I will probably be forced to look for the alternative software. Wish you all the best. 

 

I recommend mate you email sales[at]blesta.com with the features you need, and I'm sure Paul and the team could have a look at having them sooner.

[Ken]

@Paul Interesting that I have to interpret only to you in other words, everyone else seems to understand. Yes, it's the 'read-only' request.

 

Personally I do not like the dynamic around the Blesta, my fault is that I needed more than a month to realize this. In many ways it lacks features, which wouldn't be a problem if this is the first year of the development.  It actually looks to me like it's in the first year of development, but as I understand it's there from the 2007.

 

While this is tentatively coming from the frustration it is also a friendly feedback.

The lack of this feature isn't the only reason I will probably be forced to look for the alternative software. Wish you all the best. 

 

Blesta already has features such as security, open code, universal module and more that the alternatives don't have.  The small preferential features will be added without a doubt but it's not likely that the prior will be added to the alternatives anytime soon.  

[Paul]

Hi Swerlo,

 

v3 is a complete rewrite and shares no code in common with previous releases. As such, it is basically new software and it's only been out for 4 months.

 

Regarding feature requests, as you know, we have to prioritize development based on demand. When people request features they are considered, accepted rejected or put on hold, prioritized, and implemented. The core of Blesta will never do everything for everyone -- it would become bloatware, so we have to be thoughtful about the features we implement. The extension system should cover most other cases.

 

I happen to like your feature request, and I think it would be beneficial to the majority. Being that CORE-547 is a similar feature, this can be implemented as part of that task. I've added a note to the task so that fields may be selected for display as read-only within the client area. 

 

Thanks

[Cody]

Blesta already has features such as security, open code, universal module and more that the alternatives don't have.  The small preferential features will be added without a doubt but it's not likely that the prior will be added to the alternatives anytime soon.  

 

Don't forget multi-company.