[GH-ISSUE #570] Ability to lock / hide fields #206

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-02-27 08:15:52 +03:00 by kerem · 3 comments

kerem commented

2026-02-27 08:15:52 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @fgardt on GitHub (May 5, 2023).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/lldap/lldap/issues/570

Idea

Allow administrators to mark certain fields as either locked (as in not editable) or hidden for normal users.
An extension to this could be to link the locking / hiding to groups so that certain groups can edit / see fields that might be relevant to them.

Why

In certain scenarios it might be wanted / needed to lock users from editing certain fields of their own profile.
For example their email which might be assigned to them so it could potentially break things if changed.

Also once #67 allows for an arbitrary amount of fields not all of them might be relevant to / changeable by a user so hiding / locking them would be great.

Originally created by @fgardt on GitHub (May 5, 2023). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/lldap/lldap/issues/570 # Idea Allow administrators to mark certain fields as either locked (as in not editable) or hidden for normal users. An extension to this could be to link the locking / hiding to groups so that certain groups can edit / see fields that might be relevant to them. # Why In certain scenarios it might be wanted / needed to lock users from editing certain fields of their own profile. For example their email which might be assigned to them so it could potentially break things if changed. Also once #67 allows for an arbitrary amount of fields not all of them might be relevant to / changeable by a user so hiding / locking them would be great.

kerem

2026-02-27 08:15:52 +03:00

closed this issue
added the
enhancement

backend

duplicate
labels

kerem commented

2026-02-27 08:15:53 +03:00

Author

Owner

@nitnelave commented on GitHub (May 5, 2023):

I'll think about some design options, but I'd like to avoid over-complicating things, so I don't know if I'll implement per-group permissions. Do you have a compelling use case, or is it just a nice-to-have?

@nitnelave commented on GitHub (May 5, 2023): I'll think about some design options, but I'd like to avoid over-complicating things, so I don't know if I'll implement per-group permissions. Do you have a compelling use case, or is it just a nice-to-have?

kerem commented

2026-02-27 08:15:53 +03:00

Author

Owner

@fgardt commented on GitHub (May 5, 2023):

It would just be a nice-to-have that came to mind while writing the issue.
I certainly see that this will make it quite a bit more involved than just hiding/locking on its own which is why I mentioned it as a possible extension and not the main request.

@fgardt commented on GitHub (May 5, 2023): It would just be a nice-to-have that came to mind while writing the issue. I certainly see that this will make it quite a bit more involved than just hiding/locking on its own which is why I mentioned it as a possible extension and not the main request.

kerem commented

2026-02-27 08:15:53 +03:00

Author

Owner

@nitnelave commented on GitHub (May 17, 2023):

Actually, after a closer look, it's already in the scope of #67, there's a IsUserVisible and IsUserEditable bit per field.

@nitnelave commented on GitHub (May 17, 2023): Actually, after a closer look, it's already in the scope of #67, there's a IsUserVisible and IsUserEditable bit per field.

kerem referenced this issue

2026-02-27 08:18:12 +03:00

[PR #206] [MERGED] build(deps): bump docker/login-action from 1 to 2 #615