Hello there.
There is a phenomenon that i find odd and might actually be a bug:
I'll first explain the scenario:
There are 2, excusive Plans, Plan A is models, and Plan B are Modelhunters.
those 2 plans have different required fileds as you can guess; The difference basically is that the Models have fields that make up a CV ( Curriculum Vitae ), while the Hunters have none of those fields.
Only the Hunters can seach for Models, so there is only one list existig, which is only accesible for Hunters ( realized via URL-parts protection ) and only contains Models ( realized via plan->Integrations->cb field and an extra field on which i can filter i only Models )).
So my Goal is the following:
The Hunters shall be able to seach for all CV-fields.
My Problem is :
Those fields are not contained in the searchform, althou all thise fields are searchable, and in the list i set seachability to "all available fields".
And so far this seems to be the key actually: "Availability"
In order to realize that Hunters don't have the CV-fields in their profile, i set
"CBSubs Fields Tabs Protect" to
A. Availability depending on profile Owner's subscriptions
- - 1) For other viewers:
- - - - Models
- - 2) For Profile owner himself:
- - - - No: profile owner himself is also restricted
B. Field visibility by Viewer's Subscriptions:
- - 1) For other viewers:
- - - - Hunters
- - 2) For Profile owner himself:
- - - - Yes: profile owner can still view his own field
Problem:
All these fileds with these settings do NOT appear in the search in the list.
The rest works fine: only the models have those fields in theit profile. etc.
Observed:
When i now add the Hunters-group to A. 1) availability, than those fields do appear in the seach, which matches the goal
but unfortunately also in the Hunters profile, but which should be avoided.
Resumee:
So maybe - thou trieing thou different kombinations of settings - i just missed something an there acutally is a setting-combo that does realize the trick. I hope so.
In that case: Be so kind an provide some hints, or maybe the solution itself.
Otherwise: Well it might be a lil logic-mistake to perform the search on the available fields, rather then on the "visible" fields. So in that case i'd describe it as a bug.
Or my thoughts on it are buggy(?)
Curious about your feedback.
kind regards
krileon
