CRM 2011 - Merge Account creates Share
-
Saturday, March 24, 2012 2:22 PM
Hi everyone,
I had a customer ask why merging two Accounts causes a share to be created to the owner of the resulting (master) account.
At first I thought that the share was to ensure that the owners of both records would still have access to the resulting record. But when I checked the share a little closer the share is for the owner of the master record only, and this user is still the owner of the resulting record so there is no point in having a share. The owner of the second record (the record which is deactivated) does not have a share created.
Can anyone explain why this share is created and whether there is a way of stopping this share from being created?
These are my observations from my tests (just in case they help someone else):
- A share is created for the owner of the master record with all the permissions selected and added to the master record.
- Any shares that are present on the Accounts before the merge are copied to the master record.
- If both records have a share for the same user/team then the resulting share on the master record will be the sum of all the permissions of both shares.
- There are no shares created on the deactivated record.
- No exiting shares on the deactivated record are changed or deleted.
All Replies
-
Monday, March 26, 2012 11:58 AMModerator
I don't see how you can stop the share as there is no parameter to do so as part of the the MergeRequest members:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/microsoft.crm.sdk.messages.mergerequest_members.aspx
What you can do is choose which one is subordinate, which will determine which party receives the share.
Jamie Miley
Check out my about.me profile!
http://mileyja.blogspot.com
Linked-In Profile
Follow Me on Twitter! -
Friday, April 13, 2012 5:09 PM
Hi this doesnt work. We have proven that regardless which account you choose as the subordinate, a share is created for the owner of the master record, and NO share is created for the owner of the subordinate. This means the owner of the subordinate no longer has access.
Is this a bug or by design?
-
Sunday, April 15, 2012 12:59 AM
I haven't dug too far into this, but did you consider:
I hope this helps. If my response answered your question, please mark the response as an answer and also vote as helpful. Michael Mayo
-
Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:20 PMModeratorI would assume this is intended out of box functionality because when you merge the two records might have different owners.
Jamie Miley
Check out RBA Today!
Check out my about.me profile!
http://mileyja.blogspot.com
Linked-In Profile
Follow Me on Twitter! -
Saturday, March 16, 2013 3:22 PMModeratorYou might also be able to write a post-merge plugin that would remove the shares that the platform creates.
Jamie Miley
Check out RBA Today!
Check out my about.me profile!
http://mileyja.blogspot.com
Linked-In Profile
Follow Me on Twitter!