Restricting a Model-Driven App View to Managers
Short answer
A Assign the manager-only public view to a manager security role so its sensitive columns and filters stay restricted to managers.
Question
A company uses a model-driven app across multiple departments. A public view intended only for managers currently exposes sensitive columns and filters to all users. The view must restrict access to the specific public view to managers. You need to configure view access. What should you do?
Key Takeaways
The question tests view-level (not table-level) security in model-driven apps, and the trap is assuming broader table permissions or hiding the view from navigation actually restricts data access.
In a model-driven app, access to an individual public view is controlled by sharing that view with a specific security role rather than by table-wide permissions. This page explains why assigning the manager-only view to a manager security role is the correct way to keep sensitive columns and filters visible only to managers.
Common mistake: Option D is the most common wrong pick: configuring table-level permissions for managers only grants or denies access to the entire table, which either leaves the view exposed to all users or locks non-managers out of the whole table instead of just this one view.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
A public view is a securable component in a model-driven app, and views can be granted to individual security roles. By assigning the manager-intended view to a security role that only managers hold, the view — including its sensitive columns and filters — appears and is usable only for those users, directly satisfying the requirement to restrict access to the specific public view to managers. This is the narrowest, most precise control that targets exactly the object named in the scenario.Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option B, removing the view from app navigation, only hides the entry point; users who know the view or reach it through other routes still see the sensitive columns, so it is security by obscurity. Option C, setting up a quick find view, changes search behavior and has no bearing on who can see a given public view. Option D, table-level permissions for managers only, operates one layer too coarse: it governs the whole table rather than the single view, and it would strip all non-managers of table access instead of just this view.Community Comment Notes
A single community comment, from exam_upskill, agrees with this verdict, stating "A. Assign the view to a manager security role." No other comments were posted, so there is no competing rationale to weigh against this view-level security interpretation.Official Reference
Exam Strategy
When a scenario names one specific view, table, or column as the thing to secure, choose the option that scopes permissions to that exact object; broader table-level or app-level controls are almost always too wide. Treat navigation hiding and quick find setup as usability features, never as access control.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why not use table-level permissions to hide this view from non-managers?
Table-level permissions control the whole table, so they either leave the view exposed to everyone or block non-managers from the entire table instead of just this one view.
Does removing the view from app navigation secure its data?
No. Hiding navigation only removes the shortcut; users can still reach the view and see its sensitive columns, so it provides no real access control.
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 👍 1 Answered AA. Assign the view to a manager security role.
Reader comments & corrections
No reader corrections yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.