Re: Owner vs security Role
Hi @Shafdev,
Security roles and the owner of a record are both used to determine the access a user has to a table record.
When creating a table, it can be defined as organization owned or user owned.
If organization owned, then records for that table cannot have an owner and is not used for access checks on that table. The security role alone is used and the scope of access is either none or organization.
When a table is user owned, then the owner of a record is also used to determine access to a record. Based on the permission scope set for that table on the security role, the user will be compared to the owner of the record to determine access.
If the scope in the role is set to Organization, then the owner doesn't need to be compared as that means anyone can access it.
If scope is set to parent/child business unit, then that means if the user is in the same business unit or a child business unit that the record owner belongs to, then the user will have access to the record.
If the scope is set to business unit, the user will have access if they are in the same business unit as the record owner.
If the scope is set to user/team, the user will have access if they are the owner of the record, or they are part of the Team that owns the record.
To answer your 2nd question, assigning the record to another user or team changes the owner of the record to that user/team.
---
Please click Accept as Solution if my post answered your question. This will help others find solutions to similar questions. If you like my post and/or find it helpful, please consider giving it a Thumbs Up.
