Feature Request : Change Fittings from Global to Corporation/Character ( if NPC ) about seat-fitting

[dysath]

Well, the first big problem that I find is characters vs. users. If all people were members of only one corp, then it'd not be such a big deal. Users, however, tend to have characters in multiple corps - so how do you choose which fitting(s) they see? Secondly, I built it more for the alliance view where you'll have multiple corps, but all Users are have at least one character in the alliance. So viewing the alliance doctrine was more of what they were looking for. Now, as far as creating/etc., you have to have the fitting.create role to do any changes. My recommendation is that the general users have the fitting.doctrineview role and none other. The FC's get the .create and .doctrinereport views. Granted, what you ask for isn't out of the realms of possibility, but I definitely have to think it through. In the meantime, one of the features that I was supposed to add in (and forgot) was each doctrine being able to have one or more roles assigned to it for viewing purposes, which might help with part of what you ask.

…

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:47 AM, exochordagiraldii ***@***.*** > wrote: Firstly, I really like the functionality that seat-fitting brings, its exactly the kind of information that helps with running a corporation. Fittings created via seat-fitting are saved in a global catalog. It would be prudent to have the catalog and doctrines separated on a per-corporation basis to prevent one corporations fittings or doctrines being deleted by another. The doctrine report is likewise visible on a global basis, rather than being restricted in its view to a particular corporation or alliance. In the event that a character is in an NPC corporation, the view/restriction might be best configured to be character only rather than allowing hundreds ( or thousands ) of characters to edit the NPC catalogs. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#21>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQF4jDtmlG5VpADDnGwAALYi7atkc6ILks5uFJQ8gaJpZM4VJQUk> .

-- Ed Stafford

[exochordagiraldii]

Thank you for taking the time to respond, I really appreciate that.

Well, the first big problem that I find is characters vs. users. If all people were members of only one corp, then it'd not be such a big deal. Users, however, tend to have characters in multiple corps - so how do you choose which fitting(s) they see?

I admit the users/characters question is definitely a case I had not originally considered due to the fact that I don't use SEAT with multiple characters assigned to a primary identity ever since the ESI update was deployed. To me it was an advantage if every character was a separate identity, in the event that one character is sold.

Practically at the SEAT level there is no point in restricting a character identity group from viewing all possible fits to which any of the individual characters of that identity group have access. That does make for some problems when trying to create a fit, if a fit is desired to be visible for a particular character's corporation, the fitting creating process would have to accommodate selecting an identitie with that right.

Secondly, I built it more for the alliance view where you'll have multiple corps, but all Users are have at least one character in the alliance. So viewing the alliance doctrine was more of what they were looking for.

I assumed as much. The functionality your extension currently provides is impressive, yet it is problematic in that the corporations who use the SEAT instance I administer are not all part of the same alliance, nor are they on good terms with each other. I am trying to be a neutral provider of a services they can trust, and your extension is not something that I can enable widely without risking the perception of a neutral party when competing forces can obtain accurate reports on each other's capabilities.

Granted, what you ask for isn't out of the realms of possibility, but I definitely have to think it through. In the meantime, one of the features that I was supposed to add in (and forgot) was each doctrine being able to have one or more roles assigned to it for viewing purposes, which might help with part of what you ask.

In the doctrine report there is a drop down box to select which corporation to run the report on. If there was a single change that would be of greatest benefit towards my purposes it would be to show in the drop down only the corporations to which the 'user character identity group' has the requisite report running roles.

[dysath]

Hmm... You make some good points here, and you're polite (which goes a long way for me), so I'll give it some thought this week and see how, if possible, I can restrict the views based on Corp or Alliance tags. While theoretically easy, there's a lot of moving parts that all have to sync just right for this to work. I'll try to get back to you with an answer afterwards.

…

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:15 PM, exochordagiraldii ***@***.*** > wrote: Thank you for taking the time to respond, I really appreciate that. Well, the first big problem that I find is characters vs. users. If all people were members of only one corp, then it'd not be such a big deal. Users, however, tend to have characters in multiple corps - so how do you choose which fitting(s) they see? I admit the users/characters question is definitely a case I had not originally considered due to the fact that I don't use SEAT with multiple characters assigned to a primary identity ever since the ESI update was deployed. To me it was an advantage if every character was a separate identity, in the event that one character is sold. Practically at the SEAT level there is no point in restricting a character identity group from viewing all possible fits to which any of the individual characters of that identity group have access. That does make for some problems when trying to create a fit, if a fit is desired to be visible for a particular character's corporation, the fitting creating process would have to accommodate selecting an identitie with that right. Secondly, I built it more for the alliance view where you'll have multiple corps, but all Users are have at least one character in the alliance. So viewing the alliance doctrine was more of what they were looking for. I assumed as much. The functionality your extension currently provides is impressive, yet it is problematic in that the corporations who use the SEAT instance I administer are not all part of the same alliance, nor are they on good terms with each other. I am trying to be a neutral provider of a services they can trust, and your extension is not something that I can enable widely without risking the perception of a neutral party when competing forces can obtain accurate reports on each other's capabilities. Granted, what you ask for isn't out of the realms of possibility, but I definitely have to think it through. In the meantime, one of the features that I was supposed to add in (and forgot) was each doctrine being able to have one or more roles assigned to it for viewing purposes, which might help with part of what you ask. In the doctrine report there is a drop down box to select which corporation to run the report on. If there was a single change that would be of greatest benefit towards my purposes it would be to show in the drop down only the corporations to which the 'user character identity group' has the requisite report running roles. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#21 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQF4jLDeMsrhfqLNHbE_ehKX32IGrj6aks5uFTWIgaJpZM4VJQUk> .

-- Ed Stafford

[ZarosTenjin]

i'd like to 👍 this, especially with the right management rework for seat 3.1. We need to differentiate what fittings can be seen by which member(group) since for example not every newly joined recruit should be able to see our cap doctrine but very much the newbie doctrine for example