fix(config_guide): standardize field types, fix role groups and module reference#137
fix(config_guide): standardize field types, fix role groups and module reference#137emjay0921 wants to merge 1 commit intov2-in-progress-3from
Conversation
…module reference - Standardize field type names across Studio docs to "Whole Number" and "Decimal Number" (was inconsistent: "Integer", "Number (whole)", etc.) - Add notes to predefined roles that ship with only base.group_user (Global Finance, Program Manager, Support, Support Manager) explaining they need deployment-specific groups added - Fix case management module reference: spp_case_base (not spp_case_management)
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request standardizes field type terminology across the documentation by renaming 'Integer' and 'Decimal' to 'Whole Number' and 'Decimal Number'. It also updates a specific implied group name for the Case Manager role and adds explanatory notes to several predefined global roles to clarify that they only provide basic internal access by default. Review feedback highlights the need to ensure consistency in document headers and comparison tables where the old terminology or conflicting access descriptions may still reside.
| #### Range validation (numbers and dates) | ||
|
|
||
| **For Integer/Decimal fields:** | ||
| **For Whole Number/Decimal Number fields:** |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While the field names have been updated to "Whole Number" and "Decimal Number", the section header at line 90 (outside this diff hunk) still refers to "decimal/integer". To maintain consistency throughout the document, please ensure that all references, including headers, are updated to match the new standardized terminology.
| - `base.group_user` (Internal User) | ||
|
|
||
| ```{note} | ||
| This role ships with basic internal user access only. Your administrator should add deployment-specific program groups (e.g., program viewer, program officer) based on your organization's requirements. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The note for the Global Program Manager role correctly identifies that it ships with only basic access. However, the comparison table at the end of this file (lines 162-172) still lists this role as having "Full" access to Programs. This could be misleading for administrators. Consider adding a footnote to the table or clarifying that "Full" access is contingent on adding the deployment-specific groups mentioned in this note.
1 participant
Why is this change needed?
QA review found field type naming inconsistencies across Studio docs and incomplete role group definitions in predefined roles.
How was the change implemented?
event_data/field_definitions.mdandstudio/registry_field_builder.md(was inconsistent: "Integer", "Number (whole)", etc.)base.group_user, explaining administrators should add deployment-specific groupsspp_case_managementtospp_case_baseinrole_configuration/creating_roles.mdRelated links
https://projects.acn.fr/projects/acn-eng/work_packages/828