Why duplicate write ACLs? (itil and sn_incident_write)

[Tommy SN Sahlin]

Hi,

I'm looking at the OOTB table-level write ACLs for Incident.

• There is one ACL that allows write for users with the itil role, provided the incident is not 7 or 8 (closed or cancelled).
• There is another ACL that allows write for users with the sn_incident_write role, provided the incident is not 7 or 8 (closed or cancelled).

My question is, why are both of them there? Since the itil role contains the sn_incident_write role, it fills no function, right?

Wouldn't it be exactly the same if there was only the ACL allowing write for sn_incident_write?

Hope someone can explain or confirm!

many thanks in advance  /Tommy

[Ankur Bawiskar]

@Tommy SN Sahlin 

yes ideally 1 should suffice

I have seen the created timestamp of both the ACLs in my PDI

the ACL with ITIL role is created in 2017 and the other one is 2019.

Seems the sn_incident_write role was created/introduced in 2019 and hence the new ACL was added for this role without touching the OOB one

This practice I have seen in many of my earlier implementations, we tend to avoid touching OOB ACL and simply create a new one for custom requirement.

I hope I was able to explain it.

If my response helped please mark it correct and close the thread so that it benefits future readers.

[Ankur Bawiskar]

@Tommy SN Sahlin 

Thank you for marking my response as helpful.

If my response helped please mark it correct and close the thread so that it benefits future readers.