Restrict Row Visibility in Model-Driven App Views
Short answer
CD Assign security roles to the view and configure view filters based on row ownership to restrict which customer rows each user group can see.
Question
A company uses a model-driven app to manage customer records. You need to restrict specific groups of users to view only a subset of customer rows based on business criteria. Which two actions should you perform? Each correct answer presents part of the solution. NOTE: Each correct selection is worth one point.
Key Takeaways
The question tests row-level (record-level) security in model-driven apps, and the trap is picking the option that merely sounds security-related — a column security profile governs fields, not rows.
In a model-driven app, limiting which customer rows a user group can see is a combination of view security and view filtering: security roles are assigned to the view so only authorized groups use it, and view filters narrowed by row ownership slice the record set to the business criteria. The answer is C and D; column security profiles and column selection do not control row-level access.
Common mistake: Option A, assigning a user to a column security profile, is the most commonly chosen wrong answer because the word "security" misleads learners; column security profiles restrict access to individual columns (such as making a phone number read-only), not which rows a user can retrieve.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
Option C, assigning security roles to the view, is how you gate a model-driven app view itself so that only user groups holding the designated roles can see and open that view in the app's navigation; without this, any user with app access could open an unrestricted view of all customer rows. Option D, configuring view filters based on row ownership (for example, 'Related: Owner equals current user' or 'Owner team equals teams I am in'), is the mechanism that actually narrows the row set to the business criteria the company wants each group to see. Together the two actions form a complete row-restriction pattern: the role assignment decides who may use the restricted view, and the ownership-based filter decides which customer rows that view returns. This is exactly the record-level scope model Microsoft documents for Dataverse, where ownership-based business units, teams and security roles combine with view definitions to bound row visibility.Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A, assigning a user to a column security profile, is a column-level (field-level) control; it makes specific columns read-only, read-create or masked for designated profiles and has no effect on how many rows are returned. Option B, defining columns in the view, only sets the column layout and what data is displayed in each row — it changes the shape of the result set, never its membership, so every customer row would still be listed. Neither A nor B restricts row retrieval in Dataverse, so they cannot satisfy the requirement to let specific groups view only a subset of customer rows based on business criteria.Community Comment Notes
A single learner comment, from exam_upskill, selected CD and restated the picks as "C. Assign security roles to the view. D. Configure view filters based on row ownership." That matches the independent analysis here: view-level role assignment controls who can use the view, and ownership-based filters control which rows it returns. No other votes or comments were recorded, so there is no competing community position to weigh against this reasoning.Official Reference
Exam Strategy
When a question asks to restrict which ROWS a user can see, immediately separate row-level controls (security roles, business units, teams, ownership-based view filters) from column-level controls (column security profiles). Eliminate any option that only changes displayed columns or field permissions, then pair the role assignment with the filter that encodes the business criteria.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is assigning a user to a column security profile wrong for this scenario?
Column security profiles restrict access to individual columns (fields), making them read-only or masked. They do not limit which customer rows a user can retrieve, so they cannot deliver row-level scoping.
Do view filters alone restrict data access in a model-driven app?
View filters narrow the rows a specific view returns, while assigning security roles to the view decides which user groups may use that view at all. Both are needed for a complete restriction.
Discussion 1 contributions
Compiled from public community threads and reader submissions, lightly edited for clarity. Handles and vote tallies are shown as recorded.
From public community threads 1
-
exam_upskill 👍 1C. Assign security roles to the view. D. Configure view filters based on row ownership.
Reader comments & corrections
No reader corrections yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.