<div>Alan,</div><div><br></div><div>You could have used uitype 3 for this? Just a thought.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 25 September 2012 19:04, Adam Heinz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:amh@metricwise.net" target="_blank">amh@metricwise.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:03 AM, Vikas Jain <<a href="mailto:vikas@vtiger.com" target="_blank">vikas@vtiger.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Your point seems to be valid and these fields should be allowed to be<br>
> updated from REST, I'm trying to think of<br>
> use cases that might be affected by allowing this displaytype 2 fields to be<br>
> updated and their consequences.<br>
<br>
</div>I think this just a specific case of the more general field access<br>
problem. If displaytype were on vtiger_profile2field instead of<br>
vtiger_field, Alan could easily create a new user+role+profile with<br>
the necessary permissions.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<a href="http://www.vtiger.com/" target="_blank">http://www.vtiger.com/</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Regards<br>Vikas<br>Vtiger Team<br>
</div>