SAP admin lock 64

[saransavi]

Hi,

We have added a workflow for SAP lock code 64 as below. basically, we shouldnt want users to unlock the account if its admin lock code is 64 , however they can be able to unlock if its incorrect attempt. 

but it seems below work flow enabling/unlocking users from admin lock. Please check and let me know what's wrong with this flow. 

[Raghu]

@saransavi  Remove Groovy and save it try

[saransavi]

@Raghu No luck, still unlocking account from admin locks 😞

[rushikeshvartak]

It should be java method not SQL

ars_Requests_requesttype==32 and (accounts.userlock==64 OR accounts.userlock==32 )

[saransavi]

@rushikeshvartak I updated that but user can still able to unlock from change password option. Do I need to enable different way to block unlock? Below unlock button they are using for incorrect attempts and for admin locks. It should work for incorrect attempts lock ( 128 ) but not for admin lock ( 64 )

[rushikeshvartak]

Please share logs and use case.

[saransavi]

Hi @rushikeshvartak , 

Do we have any dynamic attributes from endpoint to handle the lock code status. For example user can unlock the SAP account if the lock code is 128 but they shouldn't if its admin lock 32 or 64.

[rushikeshvartak]

Need logs and full workflow snippet

[saransavi]

Do we have any private link to share Logs? 

[saransavi]

@rushikeshvartak  Please can you assists what we need to do next? we have updated the flow, if its 64 it need to reject the request, for all other lock code 128 etcc it need to unlock account. But for now its rejecting both lock code 64 and 128. 

first one is lock code 128 and second is for lock code 64

[rushikeshvartak]

Change language groovy from if else block

[saransavi]

@rushikeshvartak Thank you for the suggestion. That's working perfectly now. However the lock code is not changing in Saviynt. You can see in below screenshot state showing as unlocked but the lock code is still 128.

When I check on user side, Account unlocked for user in ARS and also in SAP, the problem is when the next job ran its again locking the user, because of this lock code. 

Thank you

[rushikeshvartak]

This looks like different issue than initial ask. Please raise new thread.

✅👍Please click the 'Accept As Solution' button on the reply (or replies) that best answered your original question.