CUP: Error in risk analysis

[Former Member]

Hi All,

I am trying to do a risk analysis in CUP. When I do a risk analysis i get an error Risk analysis failed: Exception from the service : Invalid System. I have assigned my user id the administrator role in UME, so it should have enough access to do a web service call. Also it can import roles from the same system.. So am I missing something for it to find the system on the risk analysis as well.

Thanks!

CP

[martin_trachsel · Accepted solution]

Hi CP,

Threre are different possibilities. Here are a couple of questions and comments, which you have to check it.

1. Are the connectors still work?

Solution: Please check the connectors and test them if there are working correct and if you

have a connection to backend system.

2. Are the settings for the webservices correct?

Solution: Go to the configuration - Risk Analysis = and check the webservices.

3. Are the connectors in JCO correct.

Solution: Please check the connectors in the JCO administration and check them, if there have a

connection.

Please contact me for further questions.

Cheers,

Martin

Edited by: Martin Trachsel on Apr 20, 2010 11:56 AM

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

Hi Martin,

The connectors still work. I can import a role from the system and use them.

I have configured web services as mentioned in the guide. I have selected the 5.3 Web Service entered the URL as http://Host-Address:5XX00/VirsaCCRiskAnalysisService/Config1?wsdl&style=document. The User ID exists in the UME and has administrator role in addition to having CUP Admin roles.

The JCO's are working in Content administrator, their status is green and on testing they return positive result.

Am I missing something else here?

Many Thanks!

CP

Edited by: chinmaya prakash on Apr 20, 2010 6:11 PM

[koehntopp]

Hi CP,

my guess is that the name of the connector (i.e. the first item in Connector definition) is not identical between CUP and RAR, and it needs to be.

Basically CUP will take the connector ID and use it as the parameter for the web service, so it needs to find an identical one in RAR.

Frank.

[Former Member]

Hi Frank,

I think I am little confused here. I am using the default connectors provided by SAP. I am using VIRSAR3_01_MODEL, but I do not define this name in RAR. It automatically picks up the system in RAR using this connector I believe. In CUP connectors the first field in Name which has the value VIRSAR3_01_MODEL. Where as in RAR it is System, so in RAR I mention it as XYZ DEV.

So does it mean that in RAR connector the system name has to be VIRSAR3_01_MODEL?

Many Thanks!

CP

[Former Member]

This has worked out the connector name was the problem, it didnt allow me to test the connector if I was using the SLD option. But it did work out of I removed the SLD check box. From a look at the error logs I think the SLD connector name also has to be the same. Is that correct?

Thanks!

CP

[Former Member]

CP,

The rule is, all the GRC AC modules should have same connector name for the integration to work. So, RAR and CUP should have exact same connector id for the risk anlaysis from CUP to work.

Alpesh

[Former Member]

Hi Alpesh,

Yes I understand now that the connector name in GRC should be the same everywhere. It was a simple yet difficult concept to grasp!!

My query here was that does this rule apply even to SLD? Because my system name in SLD was different than those in GRC, so when I created the connector by checking the SLD option I couldn't get the connector to work... When I checked the logs I found out that the error was that GRC couldn't find the system in SLD, so my guess here is that it should have been the same in SLD as well...for me to use the SLD option...

Thanks!

CP

[Former Member]

No. That seems to be some other issue. GRC AC has nothing to do with SLD naming convention.

Alpesh

[koehntopp]

Although I know this is a bit controversial: with all my customers, I have never used SLD connectors, I have always set them up manually in the individual components. So far none of my customers had any issues (why would they - it's what you have to do anyway if you have more than 15 systems....).

Works fine for me, no issues around naming either.

Frank.

[Former Member]

Frank

I think at any rate this is the only way to get a consistent naming across all AC components.

We go that way as well. IMHO this is not very well documented at all.

Nesimi

[Former Member]

It works for me fine though, I was just curious why it doesn't work with SLD.

Nasimi, I totally agree with you on the documentation bit of this thing...

Chinmaya

Edited by: chinmaya prakash on Apr 21, 2010 9:13 PM

Edited by: chinmaya prakash on Apr 21, 2010 9:14 PM