I have an issue with a database that uses reader names more for reducing clutter and replication times for the users rather than for security.
I loaded some data recently and forgot to set the Reader Names field. A number of users replicated and received those new documents as expected. I then went and set the Reader Names field, but subsequent replications by the users did not cause those documents to be removed from their local copies. The users cannot see those documents when accessing the server replica, but they remain on their local copies. I tried clearing replication history and setting the cutoff date, but that does not fix the problem.
Deleting the local replica and recreating it will fix the problem, but can anyone provide me with a less drastic solution?
This is to be expected. Since the user has NO access to the documents on the server now that you’ve corrected the reader fields, those document will not be replicated. Thus, the documents on the local copy will not be modified.
Replication works by the Client asking the Server for details (adds changes deletes) of documents since the last replication. The server will only tell the client about documents that the user has access to. Since the user has no access to the documents now, the server will not even tell the client that those documents exist in the server copy.
Thus, the client thinks that these documents don’t exist in the server copy. As far as it knows, those documents could have been created in the local copy.
If you really want to fix the local copies, do the following.
Copy / Paste the effected documents on the server.
Delete the original documents
Then, when the users replicate, their local documents will be deleted, and if they have reader access, the new copies will be replicated.