cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

FNM-SAP: System/Client-spawning License Assignment Rules?

Jump to solution

Dear all,

we have tried to create a rather complex system- and client-spawning license assignment rule - which so far did not work (yet?).

We tried to do the following:

  • Users may have been assigned roles with a "TECHNICIAN" suffix  on SYSTEM1/CLIENT1.
  • Users may have been assigned roles with a "SELFSERVICE" suffix on SYSTEM1/CLIENT2.
  • If a user has been assigned roles of both role classes, she/he shall be assigned a specific license type (e.g.: Limited Professional) on SYSTEM1/CLIENT2.

We entered the condition set of the license assignment rule as follows:

((HasMatch(SystemID,"SYSTEM1") AND HasMatch(ClientID,"CLIENT1") AND HasRoleMatch(false, "*TECHNICIAN*")) AND ((HasMatch(SystemID,"SYSTEM1") AND HasMatch(ClientID,"CLIENT2") AND HasOnlyRolesWithin(false, "*SELFSERVICE*"))

As for the system assignment of this rule: it was directed to SYSTEM1/CLIENT2.

Either one of the two "halves" of this condition statement will work fine for itself. However, the combination will not produce any matches.

Our Questions:
Is it possible at all to create system-/client-spawning license assignment rules as we tried to do it?
If so: What's our mistake in creating one?

Thank you very much in advance & kind regards,

Stefan

1 Solution
yzhang
Flexera Alumni

Hi Stefan,

To my understanding, no matches is the expected result of this rule definition. The result is per user record and each user it cannot belong to SYSTEM1/CLIENT1 and SYSTEM1/CLIENT2 at the meantime. Even if the same user name in different clients, they still be treated as different users for this rule calculation in the system as they actually have different unique IDs.

Sorry I cannot think out a way how custom rule can support your scenario. Thanks.

View solution in original post

This thread has been automatically locked due to inactivity.

To continue the discussion, please start a new thread.

2 Replies
yzhang
Flexera Alumni

Hi Stefan,

To my understanding, no matches is the expected result of this rule definition. The result is per user record and each user it cannot belong to SYSTEM1/CLIENT1 and SYSTEM1/CLIENT2 at the meantime. Even if the same user name in different clients, they still be treated as different users for this rule calculation in the system as they actually have different unique IDs.

Sorry I cannot think out a way how custom rule can support your scenario. Thanks.

We feared that - but at least we have the confirmation. Thanks a lot for this!

Kind regards,

Stefan

0 Kudos