UAR initiator issue in CUP

[Former Member]

Hello,

We are running into issues trying to make it work. Our client is on the latest support pack 13.1.

Please see the details of technical issue with the UAR process below.

We have one initiator which is set for multiple systems the following way:

DEV/QA Access

ROLE Role1 OR

ROLE Role 2 OR

ROLE Role 3 OR

APPLICATION Application 1 AND

APPLICATION Application 2 OR

APPLICATION Application 3 OR

APPLICATION Application 4 OR

APPLICATION Application 5 NOT

ACTION OF ROLE Remove NOT

A second:

Production Access

ROLE Role 1 OR

ROLE Role 2 OR

ROLE Role 3 OR

APPLICATION Application 5 AND

APPLICATION Application 1 NOT

APPLICATION Application 2 NOT

APPLICATION Application 3 NOT

APPLICATION Application 4 NOT

ACTION OF ROLE Remove NOT

UAR Initiator:

REQUEST TYPE UAR_REVIEW AND

PRIORITY UAR_HIGH AND

The initiators work fine when requesting access for the dev/qa systems (Applications 1,2,3,4) OR the production system (Application 5). UAR works fine when testing for the production system (Application 5), however when running UAR against one of the Dev/QA systems (Application 1,2,3,4), after running the u201CUAR Review Update Workflowu201D job, which submits the requests to actually be approved/rejected, we are getting a multiple initiator found error, for UAR Initiator and for DEV/QA initiator.

It seems to me that since UAR_REVIEW uses a completely different workflow type(i.e. UAR_REVIEW) it should not conflict with any other initiator using the AE workflow type. I do not know if CUP is supposed to be able to differentiate between these to avoid overlapping initiators, or if there is some issue with the initiator logic used, or the way CUP interprets it.

Thanks in advance for your quick responses

-Mohan

[Former Member]

Mohan,

Can you please paste the logs for this error? It will tell us which initiators are being initiated and which fields are part of the initiators.

Alpesh

[Former Member]

Hello Alpesh,

Sorry for the delay response. I've done some workaround and now I found it okay.

Thanks,

Mohan