Stopping AR workflow at rejection

[Former Member]

If a user raises an access request on behalf of another user and the request gets rejected by the first level of approval (line manager) the user who the request was for receives the rejection notification which is correct.

However the requestor (who raised the request on behalf of the user) receives the Access Request close notification.

Does anyone know how to send the rejection notificaiton to the requestor as well instead of the close notification??

[former_member193066]

Go to MSMP Stage notification setting and maintain there.

and in Process Global settings check whom you have maintained for Request Closer.That nperson will receive when request get closed either by approval or Rejection

Regards,

Prasant

[Former Member]

Hi Prasant

Sorry I got it the wrong way. The requestor who raised the request receives the notification of rejection which is correct. The end user receives the standard close notification. This doesnt tell them the request was rejected. 

Is there a way to not send anything to the end user.? They should only get a notifiation when the access request is approved and provisioned not rejected.

This issue is only for when the requestor is not the end user. Requestor is raising on behalf.

[former_member193066]

Hello,

You can stop end user getting any closure mail..

only when provisioned they will get mail for their password.

what you need to do is.. at process global settings.. under notification ..

END OF REQUEST:GRAC_AR CLOSE to GRAC REQUESTOR instead of user.

so when request get closed by closed and id get created mail goes to enduser rest notification to requestor.

Regards,

Prasant

[Colleen]

Hi Angela

To add to Prasant's comments:

They should only get a notifiation when the access request is approved and provisioned not rejected.

On the final stage for the path, you will need to configure the APROVED notification event to go to the end user (Communicate logon details). You can choose to configured a REJECTED notification if you want to.

Is there a way to not send anything to the end user.?

On the Process Global settings you can configure END_OF_REQUEST for the requester

Regards

Colleen

[Former Member]

Process Global settings thre is an END_OF_REQUEST to requestor and an END_OF_REQUEST to the user (different messages)

If I remove the END_OF_REQUEST to the user doesn't that mean they won't get the provisioning details when approved?

[Colleen]

If I remove the END_OF_REQUEST to the user doesn't that mean they won't get the provisioning details when approved?

Can you test moving the notification for the end user from here to the final stage (Approval) for notification type APPROVED instead? That way they only receive a notification for approval and not for rejection?

[Former Member]

Hi Colleen

That sort of worked.

I removed END_OF_REQUEST for USER out of the Global Settings and added at the final stage APPROVE notification type.

The user now only receives the email on approval but for some reason the Provisioning variable doesn't work. The email says no provisioning logs available. But it was working fine when it was at the global level

Any ideas why that might occur? Very weird.

[Former Member]

additionally nothing is now getting provisioned. Could this change to notification affected anything else?

[Colleen]

Hi Angela

That does seem strange as notifications shouldn't impact provisioning.

I won't be of much help as I don't have a GRC system to check

However, could it be coincidence that there is a reason no provisioning logs are available (e.g. user already has the access). Does SLG1 logs contains any further information?

Cheers

Colleen

[Colleen]

Can you remove the notification at the end of the stage altogether and see if provisioning works? It'll do process of elimination for you

what run time to you have in the MSMP instance runtime log for path close out and notification?

[Former Member]

looks like it was an internet explorer caching thing. I logged off and its all OK with the settings back to normal.  I will play with it again to verify my last test. Grrrrr. not a good thing to happen at the end of the day

thanks again for your help

[Colleen]

Ahh caching - forgot about that!

Glad to hear you figured it out!

Good luck with your implementation