Will you consider looking at supporting restriction rules by public groups in the future?
We have use cases where we are using sharing rules by public group and therefore would consider doing restriction rules by the same public groups
Hello @Eric Jin, @Percolator Consulting, @Linda Dugan and Trailblazers!
We're unlikely to do public groups since groups can be nested and we want to keep performance as fast as possible. I'd like to hear more about why you'd prefer public groups over the User Criteria. I'd also be interested if you'd consider using Custom Permissions (which are assigned through perm sets and/or perm set groups).
I'm also including a comment I added on a few other posts:
-------- Thank you for all the great feedback we received; I am happy to see many customers participated in the pilot and beta for Restriction Rules! As we go GA in Winter ‘22, we want to hear your feedback. Standard objects may have unique behaviors that we need to ensure are working with Restriction Rules. I have created a set of ideas based on feedback shared in the trailblazer community for standard objects; this way, the object owners can see and respond to your feedback. Please follow these links to upvote and and comment.
We are also interested in what areas you’d like to see additional investment in and what use cases this will unlock for you. Where should we invest in Restriction Rules such that the user or record criteria supports:
- AND operator
- OR operator
- cross object lookup aka spanning fields (today we support a single level for record criteria)
- picklists
