Questions Joining Row level security and users table

Restriction Groups by User under the Explore menu of RLS already gives you this information.

Thanks for your feedback Royce. But what I want is to create a report with this that is why I need this inquiry. 

Well your query design worked fine for me. I changed it to inner join to filter users with no RLS security enabled. 

The results were consistent with the Restriction Groups by User page except that only Restriction Groups with the left most box ticked are shown. 

What issue are you having?

I've already tried this one. But still if I have access in multiple group name it can't be read by this inquiry.

I confirmed your issue. If you include the GroupMask field in the results, it is reported as System.Byte[] - so likely it's some kind of bit mask field. I have no idea how this field is used to track Restriction Groups per user, but anyway, there are no Bitwise GI functions so I can't see how it will be possible to accomplish what you are trying to do via GI.

Oh I see thanks for the info. I hope there's a way to do this.  If not GI at least a report where I can show how many users is accessing a specific group in RLS.

I just tried and wasn't able to figure it out either 🙁

anyone have an update on this topic. I too am attempting a GI/Report that will provide Row Level Security group with Users who have access.  

its Not possible to go directly from RelationGroup to Users, the groupmask field mentioned above is only coincidentally matching as the relation is not one for one.

Thanks for any assistance.

There are some details on the structure of Restriction Groups in this article - https://asiablog.acumatica.com/2016/08/restriction-groups-architecture.html

I have not been successful in creating generic inquiries using the RelationGroup and GroupMask objects either.  It may be possible to create a SQL View and then use that as the basis for a generic inquiry, but I have not tried that approach yet.

Without Bitwise operators available in GI, it's just not possible.

If you feel strongly about needing it, add an idea to the ideas portal.

https://feedback.acumatica.com/ideas

Frankly speaking I see no reason why Acumatica needed to use bitmasking for implementation of Restriction Groups. It's overly complex and non-relational.