GRC 10: GRAC_Default_Path is being followed in spite of defining Custom path???

[former_member184114]

Hi All,

I am facing one problem while expiring the user account in SAP back end system.

Actually, I have created a new request type called "EXPIRE ACCOUNT" and  maintain "CHANGE USER" action.I defined BRF+ rule for this request type. In the decision table, I mentioned the request type as the base condition only and then it returns certain INITIATOR called EXPIRE_INITIATOR. I simulated it with proper selection of "Expire Account" request type and it correctly fetched the "EXPIRE_INITIATOR".

I maintained all the relevant details in MSMP configuration and defined a custom path for this wherein, only one stage is defined. This stage is a GRAC_MANAGER stage. I have saved and activated the latest version of workflow.

Then I created a request for "EXPIRE ACCOUNT" request type. I added the respective system and changed the "Valid To" field to today's date. Filled manager and other required details in User Details tab. Then submitted the request and it got through.

Manager has successfully received the request and he approved it successfully. However, after this, request is getting failed and threw this below error:

No agent found, cancelling path GRAC_DEFAULT_PATH (in stage no. 002 - GRAC_ROLEOWNER)

My question is, why this is following path GRAC_DEFAULT_PATH? I was expecting it to follow "Z_USER_EXPIRE_PATH" defined by me in MSMP!!!

This path has only 1 stage and that is GRAC_MANAGER!

Why it is looking for "GRAC_ROLE_OWNER? There is no such stage defined!!

Thinking that it is looking for role owners for the roles assigned to the user, I deleted all the roles from the user in the back end system and synchronized all the details from the same back end system.

Then I recreated the request with the same details. However, still it is following the same GRAC_DEFAULT_PATH!

I checked in SLG1 tcode for errors. But everything is in green and I see no errors there.

Can any one guide me in this?

Regards,

Faisal

[former_member184114 · Accepted solution]

It is resolved.

Actually, it was cause by incorrect "rule set" in the path. I had mentioned some incorrect rule set in the path, where as, the initiator which was created using BRF+ was returning some different rule set. Once the proper rule set is mentioned, it got through.

Faisal