Possible Bug: Inability to implicitly give access to all bank accounts

Previously I was able to give certain restricted users access to all accounts by selecting *.

Now we cannot do that. Instead, now I have to select each and every account in the user permissions screen like this:

Can we please have the option to select all without physically having to select each and every account?

I believe that was part of improving access control when several users reported problems several months ago. The entire philosophy of permissions changed, and the default condition for every permission became no access. The ability to select all bank accounts by entering * was never documented as a feature.

But is this intentional or just an unwanted byproduct of the changes made? Because it doesn’t seem logical for one of my clients, they manage a trust fund and regularly open and close bank accounts for their clients.

Constantly managing the treasurer’s access to bank accounts is too much work. Is there another “set it and forget it” way?

I am not sure the specific behavioral change was either intentional or unintentional. The conversion to “No access” as the default condition was very definitely intentional. But since the effect of entering an asterisk in the account selection field was never documented, I doubt any thought was given to it. If I recall correctly, when the ability to grant access to individual bank accounts was first introduced, you could type into the field, and auto-complete options would appear. When the current implementation was introduced, you definitely became restricted to a dropdown list of established bank accounts, negating any possibility of a global selection. So perhaps it was intentional.

Whether intentional or accidental, the current implementation certainly addresses the only complaints ever voiced in the forum until now — users being able to see accounts they were not supposed to see. Your post was the first I remember in which someone complained that it was too hard to give access.

1 Like

@Ealfardan it is not intentional. There are going to be improvements within a week that will accomodate your use-case too.

1 Like