GRC AC 10.0 - HR Triggers - rule not satisfied

[Former Member]

Hello,

I am currently struggling with getting my HR trigger for new user work.

What I did uptil now:

- In plugin system:

  - Add parameter 1001 and 1003 in plugin system

  - Create RFC connection in plugin system

- In GRC system:

  - Update configuration related to "maintain mapping for actions & connector groups"

  - Maintain AC applications & BRF+ function mapping: map rule to process for access request

  - BRF+ function updated with ruleset, rules, decision table & activated & simulated tested ok

  - Maintain settings for HR trigger

So far, while updating the infotype 0105 with subtype 0001, I get HR trigger activated.

Log can be seen in SLG1 on GRC system.

I get in there the message:

The Info type value changes from the HR system are mentioned below:

Info Type        Field        New Value        Old Value

0105               AEDTM           20121214

0105               BEGDA           19930814

0105               ENDDA           99991231

0105               INFTY           0105

0105               PERNR           00000014

0105               SUBTY           0001

0105               UNAME           WOUTERSJ

0105               USRID           TESTTT

0105               USRTY           0001

Rules are not satisfied for Employee ID 00000014

Does this mean that my decision table is not correct?

I have put now the following:

- connector: grc_dev200

- parent type: 0105

- subtype: 0001

- field name: USRID

- old value: is not initial

- new value: <>fieldval

- actionID: CRE

Thanks 4 help!

regards,

Johan

[richak2012]

Hi Luciana - I’m also facing the similar issue. I have raised SAP inicident too. Can you please help?

We just need workflow to trigger for user termination but SLG1 logs are ending error rules not satisfied.

[former_member136769]

Unfortunately due to workload I am not being able to check the SCN more often, I apologise!

[santosh_krishnan2]

No problem Luciana!

Thanks,

Santosh

[former_member136769]

Hi Picho, please review WIKI I have just made to help debug it:

Debugging HR Trigger functionality - Governance, Risk and Compliance - SCN Wiki

Thanks!

[Former Member]

Hello, i am trying to configure HR trigger but i am lost, i have already follow instruction for HR Triggers but i dont know what to do

Do you have some reference material?

Thanks

[former_member136769]

Hi Picho,

Your query is to vague, can you please specify what is the purpose for your HR triggger, such as New hire, termination? And What steps have you completed? is the brf rule simulating correctly? please specify,

luciana.

[Former Member]

Hi Luciana,

I'm getting the same issue, but for me I will use the infotype 105 with subtype 0010 to start my trigger.

I'm trying to map the user ID with de the personal number .

Please can you help me?

obrigada

Isabelle

[santosh_krishnan2]

Hi Luciana,

Thanks for the guide, I've followed it and the triggers are somewhat working.  After configuring the triggers in our development systerm, per your guide, I then ran the function module and input data from an old trigger that I found in SLG1. 

This was a create request and it properly created an access change request in the workflow.

However in your guide, you don't have information on how to simulate terminations, and so I don't know if my decision table is at fault or if there's something else that's keeping the trigger from picking up terms.

The method you outlined for creates seems to work.  When I run the function module with data from an old SLG1 trigger, an access request is created.

Please let me know.

Thanks,

Santosh

[santosh_krishnan2]

Luciana, I have an update on this for you.

For creates, when I go through the process you've outlined in your blog on debugging HR triggers, where I go to SE37 and plug in the data, the trigger correctly creates a request.  But when HR creates the user, it fails.

See the attached screenshots.  Same data.  The fail is from the trigger, while the success is from running the function module and plugging in the data.

I haven't yet tested terminates though this method, but it fails when it comes in through the trigger.

Thanks,

Santosh

[former_member136769]

Hi Santosh, it seems the one that errors has SYVTY 0001. Do you have already an OSS opened for it? If not, can you create one? If not, pls paste decision table screenshot, Thanks

[santosh_krishnan2]

Hi Luciana,

OSS message is open - with decision table and screenshots in it.

Thanks,

Santosh

[former_member136769]

Hi Santosh, what is the OSS number?

[santosh_krishnan2]

66361.  Last night it was established that the BRF+ is good, something up with HR.  Would really appreciate your input.  Danke!

[former_member136769]

Hi Santosh, I have taken incident 66361. 🙂

[former_member136769]

Are you programmer? abaper? technical person? I can provide you steps to debug it.

[Former Member]

Hello All, could somebody explain how to do that?.

I’m implementing HR triggers for withdrawals on GRC 10 When a person is withdrawn, the access request should locks the user, change the user group on the user master to TERMINATE, and adjust the validity date on the user master to the withdrawn date.

How can i do that is there any documentation related? Is it possible that you can provide some guidance screenshot for steps to be performed?

Thanks a lot.

Picho

[former_member136769]

Hi Picho, it can be a very small configuration missing, or it can be an issue with the application. Do you get any errors? can you explain your decision table and brf rule? user defaults config?

[former_member136769]

Hi Johan,

Check the following:

1) Open the BRF plus rule, navigate to the decision table component, click on "Table Settings" and make sure you have the check boxes as follows: first unchecked, second checked, third unchecked.

2) In the BRF rule still, navigate to the main Function, go to tab Signature, and make sure the name of the context table is HR_TRIGGER_TABLE, and nothing else other than this name.

3) Navigate to the second rule (which is called from the LOOP) and make sure you have only the two operations:

Change

Structur...-Action ID

after processing expression

DECISIONTABLE_test

Insert

values into

Table type for Action ID

from

Structur...-Action ID

If the above points are okay, it should match the rule, let me know,

Luciana.

[Former Member]

Hi,

Another tips helpfuls:

- The parameter 1003 configured in HR backend has to be set in YES.

- The parameter 1000 configured in HR backend has to be a RFC local. The name of the RFC local has to be equal to the parameter entered in the desicion table in GRC (so you have to create the same connector name in GRC).

Hope this help!

Regards,

[Former Member]

Hi Johan

I'm having the same problem, when I view the transaction log by SLG1, returns the error: "Rules are not satisfied".

You could fix the problem?

Thanks,

William

[former_member136769]

Oi William,

I have fixed this for Johan, can you pls email me with your issue? see if I can help without logging a message.

thanks

[Former Member]

Hi Luciana, I have the same issue. Please, can you check this?

My rules in brf+ are:

- Conector: ERDCLNT110

- Parent Type: 0105

- Subtype: 0001

- Field name: USRID

- new value: is not initial

- old value: <> new field value

- actionID: CRE

And in the log have:

Tipo info        Campo        Valor nvo.       Valor ant.

0105               AEDTM           20130610

0105               BEGDA           20130610

0105               ENDDA           99991231

0105               INFTY           0105

0105               PERNR           00000014

0105               SUBTY           0001

0105               UNAME           CERCOLI

0105               USRID           TESTCE01

0105               USRTY           0001

In spro in ERD have the same name connector in parameter 1000: ERDCLN310.

I configured it in SP07 and it works. Now in SP12 I have this problem.

Kind regards,

[former_member136769]

Hi Claudio,

Interesting it used to work in SP07, and not anymore. I am checking it, context isnot being passed (data from HR) into the generated brf code, so LOOP is exiting as there is no data to LOOP in. This is strange, I will need to check it once I have autho to save changes.  Thanks.

[Former Member]

Hi Luciana, thanks for the response.

This works on SP07 in another environment and different SAP_BASIS component. In NW 731 we have some problems that are not present in earlier releases.

Again, thank you very much.

Regards,

[former_member136769]

Hi Claudio

yep I assume you may need to apply some BRF notes to fix it, I have forwarded the message to BC-SRV-BR and they should update us shortly, I am following this message too. Thanks.

[Former Member]

Hi Luciana and Johan,

It seems that I have the same problem as above.  I have Simulated my BRF+ function and it works perfectly, however, there seems to be no link between the HR user creation and the BRF+ function and I also get the "Rule not satisfied" message in SLG1.  I have even manually added the Request Type 001 as an additional Data Element. 

Can anyone perhaps help me?  I have a whole document of the steps that I have completed as far as config goes and will send it on if required.  I cannot find your e-mail addresses so using this thread as a first step.

Thanks in advance if anyone can help.

[former_member136769]

Hi Helen,

best approach is to pen a SAP ticket, are you able to do it? if not, pls send me an email to luciana.ullmann@sap.com

Thanks

[Former Member]

Hi Helen,

I had a similar issue and Luciana solved it through a sap message.

Regards,

[Former Member]

Thanks Luciana and Claudio, i have logged an OSS message 🙂

[former_member136769]

Thanks Claudio and Helen, I hope I can resolve Helen's too 🙂

[Former Member]

Hello,

I have configured every part of my HR trigger and am getting a similar error to others I’ve read about.

Rules are not satisfied for Employee
ID

Right now I think my Decision Table is probably incorrect.Our requirement says that if a users email is entered in the PA30 record and saved it should then kick off the request in GRC (user could already be created). The logic I have right now is as follows:

Connector: GRC-CRBCLNT200

Table Name: 0105 (not sure if it should be PA0105 instead)

Subtype: 0010 (Internet Mail)

Field Name: USRID_LONG

Field Value: is initial

Field Value: is not initial (I see people use <> new ield value) but can’t find it.)

Action ID: CREAT

Any suggestion of what the Decision table should look like or this would be appreciated.

Regards,

[Former Member]

Hi Kyle,

Luciana is extremely helpful.  You will need to log an OSS message anyway so that she can help, but thumbs up from my side.  We got my HR trigger issues sorted out last night 🙂

Thanks again Luciana

Regards

[former_member136769]

Hi Kyle,

I have asked Johan to check a few points, please see my reply to him below. Try them yourself, if still not working, please open a ticket and ask it to be routed to me, and I will try to help!

Luciana.

[former_member136769]

About the decision table, I have made an example for your, please check.

[Former Member]

Hey Luciana,

I checked all of your above points and everything was 100% correct. I tried to rebuild the D-table as follows:

Still the same error though. I would have thought that I could have use "is initial" and then "is not initial" if the email field will be blank and then will be filed in to trigger the action.

Let me know if you see something wrong, please

[Former Member]

Hello,

Does anybody has an idea?

Do I need to go for the procedure call solution?

Goal is to trigger creation of userID by updating infotype 0105, subtype 0001.

It would be nice to include in the trigger validity date.

Thanks for your help.

regards,

Johan

[Former Member]

Hello,

I have implemented the procedure call ZCL_HR_TRIGGER_ACTION and linked that to my BRF+ rule. When I simulate, I get the correct action ID as output.

However, when I update the infotype 0105 in the backend system for USRID and save, I get still in my SLG1 log the message "Rule not satisfied".

Anybody an idea?

I guess "rule not satisfied" that there is no match between infotype updates of fields and the BRF+ rule that I built. Correct?

Can somebody advise in this matter?

Thanks & regards,

Johan