Filtering Users by Supervisor Role in Collections

paulpopus2 years ago

17

• 

  whysocket2 years ago

  The documentation is confusing.

  
  

  The user is 'null' when the admin ui is rendering.

  
  
  

  Example

  
  
  

  doesn't console log anything.
• 

  thorsun_999852 years ago

  Yes, I've tried the filterOptions as demonstrated in the documentation, however I would need to know the id of the specific role since roles is a relationship field to the Roles collection. That's fine for a single deployment, but we deploy to multiple environments, so the id of that role will be different for each deployment. Thus we can't hard code it.

• 

  whysocket2 years ago

  Im facing the same problem.

  
  
  

  Your jwt doesn't have the roles?

• 

  thorsun_999852 years ago

  It does, and that's what we've been using up to this point, however our customer wants us to get away from using Keycloak/jwt tokens since we plan on implementing some very complex RBAC features and we are also planning to integrate with different sources for authentication.

  
  
  

  We have to use Payload

• 

  whysocket2 years ago

  by now try to acess the user in filter options

• 

  thorsun_999852 years ago

  Yes, I can access user in the filter options. Your sample shows all users in the console. Roles is shown as an array. I need to filter for just the users with "Supervisor" in that array.

• 

  paulpopus2 years ago

  oic

• 

  thorsun_999852 years ago

  Actually since the filterOptions is just for user, it lists only the current user.

• 

  paulpopus2 years ago

  currently it doesnt provide req for you, you could open a feature request for this

  
  
  

  you have two other options right now:

  
  

  1. a custom component for this so you control exactly which relationships are fetched

  
  
  

  2. thinking a bit outside the box, you can provide a custom id to your roles collection, allowing you to keep IDs consistent...if theyre string your ids could be statically set like

  admin
  
  

  any field with its name

  id

  will be used as a custom id, the type here will depend on your database configuration as well

• 

  whysocket2 years ago

  @858693520012476436

  im facing a similar problem, can u help me with that please?

  
  
  https://discord.com/channels/967097582721572934/1235981447211515998
• 

  thorsun_999852 years ago

  Could you provide an example of how to provide a custom id? That sounds like it might be the way for us to go.

• 

  paulpopus2 years ago

  just name a field

  id

  with a text type

  
  
  

  put it at the top to make it easier

• 

  thorsun_999852 years ago

  I just found that. Cool I will try it out.

• 

  paulpopus2 years ago

  might need a data migration for existing data to be moved over

• 

  thorsun_999852 years ago

  Didn't have but a few roles, so I was able to clear it and re-add. Here's what I've got for the filterOptions, but not sure yet is this is correct. I'm doing a build now to test it. The custom id for the Supervisor role is 24001. {

  
  

  name: "supervisor",

  
  

  type: "relationship",

  
  

  relationTo: "users",

  
  

  filterOptions: ({ relationTo, user }) => {

  
  

  return {

  
  

  roles: { contains: 24001}

  
  

  }

  
  

  }

  
  

  },

  
  
  

  That wasn't correct. Trying filterOptions: ({ relationTo, id })

  
  
  

  Nope. Not correct either.

  
  
  

  Tried relationTo, siblingData as well

  
  
  

  I've tried a number of combinations and can't figure this out.

  
  
  

  Finally figured it out. I set the custom id as text instead of number and set the id for Supervisor to 'supervisor'. Then the following filterOptions worked: {

  
  

  name: "supervisor",

  
  

  type: "relationship",

  
  

  relationTo: "users",

  
  

  filterOptions: () => {

  
  

  return {

  
  

  roles: { in: 'supervisor' }

  
  

  }

  
  

  }

  
  

  },

• 

  whysocket2 years ago

  Thanks for share

  @1149767980356468886
• 

  thorsun_999852 years ago

  Bah, forgot how to mark this as solved.