Division Settings For Limited Users (hide codes from limited users)


I have gone through guidelines for restricted user where permitted actions are categorized into four options.

Our organization have pre-defined roles and rights according to departments and cost centers. We have used tracking code field to refer cost centers. Now, we would like to assign the roles and their right limited to particular tracking code.

We will appreciate your guidance and support in order complete this phase and depute the access for successful implementation.


That will not work. Permissions are related to tabs and forms only. Tracking codes are related to individual line items on transactions.

Thank you for your prompt response.

Is there any other way by which we manage restriction of user for tabs and forms to selected customers and like wise as it is one of important and critical aspect for implement and to limit access.

If I understand you correctly, the answer is no. Permissions are not that fine-grained.

I like the idea of hiding tracking codes from limited users. For organisations with cost centres, different projects, revenue centres and different branches in different geographical areas, this would help. With a feature like that and the ability to hide locations (Hide Location from Restricted user) from limited users, departmental accounting would be smoother.

I have added your topic to ideas. The ability to hide Tracking Codes from limited users can help ensure the correctness of tracking code reports. I changed your topic title to make it easy to find.

I don’t think this is would work. Tracking codes are selected only as a line item is entered. Users would be able to do anything, just not assign a tracking code. They might be able to view only transactions with “their” tracking codes. But what happens when line items on the same sales invoice go to different tracking codes? You can’t just display portions of the invoice. Likewise for all transaction types.

I agree with @Abeiku here, but I don’t think it’s “hiding”, but limiting users to specific traking codes in a similar fashion to cash or bank accounts.

1 Like

@Tut Users need not see tracking codes they don’t have to use.

That was not my point. Restricting the ability of a user to select a tracking code to only those codes authorized is probably straightforward. The problems come when you have transactions involving tracking codes a user is not authorized to use. Do you prevent the display of an invoice because it includes one unauthorized tracking code among 10 line items? Do you prevent a user from seeing transactions in a bank account because one of them includes a line item with an unauthorized tracking code? If so, what do you do about running balances? Do you stop a user from seeing quantities of inventory items if sale or purchase of one has been assigned to an unauthorized tracking code?

All sorts of difficulties can easily be envisioned if you try to use tracking codes as a way of setting permissions. Tracking code functionality was designed as a way of segregating general ledger transactions—line by line. It was never meant as a means for setting permissions to view/edit/create/delete transaction forms, account balances, etc.

Tracking codes do not even apply to balance sheet accounts, yet @Rajwani wants to use them to set roles and permissions to access tabs, forms, and specific customers. That is a long way from their designed purpose of separating revenue and expense account postings by division or cost center.

1 Like

In situations where a purchase invoice is for two cost centres. A user who sees all the codes involved should be the one to do the entry or use Tracking Exception Report to assign a code to the line item.

But that is trying to address problems with the recommended program change that cannot be overcome in the software with a management procedure. Even if the management procedures worked around the problems, they would still be there, ready to frustrate any user who did not follow them. I’ve expressed my opinion. The last thing I will say on the subject is that what this idea contemplates is a total transformation of the purpose and design of the tracking code feature.

That is in order. Manager keeps getting updated often, features in Manager keeps improving, a lot of overhauling happens in the background.

1 Like

Thank you @Tut for deep insight.

Actually, we started using tracking code and eventually evolve enjoying flexibility of Manager.

At this stage, we have expanded to could edition therefore requirements vary from desktop edition and that’s the edge of could that multi-user can work at the same time to increase productivity and efficiency of the organization.

We managed our financials centrally, however, certain roles are designated to cost center therefore it is important to ensure its applicability as well.

We understand, it could be but this is how software applications evolve considering the new requirements. Honestly, I do not know whether it is possible for you to find a way yet what I get it is very difficult considering structure. We will appreciate, if you can let us know at-least the possibility and time frame, if we consider the idea positively.

Thank you everyone once again for your suggestions!!

@lubos There have been discussions on introducing user restrictions for locations, divisions, and accounts to help properly maintain segments.

It is with this in mind that I want to suggest how this could be administered in Manager.

There are 3 categories of user permission settings in Manager. They are:

  • Tabs
  • Reports
  • Settings

My idea is to add a fourth category named Accounting Dimensions or simply Dimensions.

The idea is to enable the selection of locations, divisions, and tax codes a user could use in transactions in the manner we assign Bank Accounts for users.

This additional category will have 3 items on the list.

Accounting Dimension and tax codes

  • Locations
  • Divisions
  • Tax Codes

But why include tax codes? Users under different divisions may use different tax codes, for example, the USA and India.
Secondly, all tax codes (both Sales and purchase purpose Tax Codes ) are listed for selection when generating transactions but users who have been assigned to generate only sales transactions do not need to see Purchase purpose tax codes. This reduces entry errors.

i think this would be solved by below.

It definitely would.

Here me out @Abeiku, I completely agree with your proposal for tighter user permissions but I don’t think adding complexity to the UI is the way to go.

I stand to be corrected but I see that we already have a similar control over bank and cash accounts.

I think more of the same would be just enough, unless I am missing something here in which case I’d like to know more about it.

@Ealfardan How is this going to add complexity to the user interface?

I’m only saying we should replicate the manner in which we grant access to bank accounts to users for Locations and Divisions.

I complete agree but the layout you propose isn’t the familiar layout.

I’m not entirely sure if “complexity” was my best choice of words but what I meant was the in the permissions form the entry for bank and cash will be repeated: once in Tabs and again in Dimensions.

Similarly, locations and divisions will have two entries: once in Settings and again in Dimensions.

Just to be fair, that’s not a bad layout. It’s just that the permissions list is already very big lengthwise and there’s a lot of empty real estate sideways.

Maybe the columns of the permission could be labeled as follows:

Recordset Actions Dimensions

But even if not, I would still take what you propose as an improvement – a lengthy one, but still an improvement nonetheless. :grin: