Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

In this scenario we'll show four-stage approvals for role assignments. Assignment of each critical role will be approved at two to four stages, by the following actors:

StageApproversModeNote
1manager(s) of the role assignee"All must approve", i.e. if there are more managers (either because the user is a member of more organizations, or an organization has more than one manager), all of the must approve the request.If there are no managers, the request will be rejected outright.
2members of Security Approvers organization"First decides", i.e. first member that provides the decision will approve request (at this stage), or reject it altogether.Applicable only for selected roles.
3members of SoD Approvers organization"First decides"Applicable only for selected roles.
4approvers specific for the given roleEither "All must approve" or "First decides", based on the configuration.If there are no approvers, the request will be rejected.

Files for this scenario are in the testing/story/strings directory. Let's have a look at most important ones.

Contrary to legacy (pre-3.5) approach where the approval process had to be defined as a single unit, starting from midPoint 3.5 a declarative approach, based on policy rules, can be used. These policy rules can be system-wide (defined in system configuration) or specifically assigned, usually via metaroles. The latter approach is used in this scenario.

There are five metaroles:

MetaroleMeaningNote
metarole-approval-line-managersWhen assigning a role that possesses this metarole, an approval of assignee's line managers is required.Priority (order) of this approval schema fragment is 10.
metarole-approval-securityWhen assigning a role that possesses this metarole, an approval of someone from Security Approvers org is required.Order of this schema fragment is 20.
metarole-approval-sodWhen assigning a role that possesses this metarole, an approval of someone from SoD Approvers org is required.

Order of this schema fragment is 30.

Note that this is just a placeholder for future policy rule that will detect actual SoD violation, and arrange this approval only if there's some.

metarole-approval-role-approvers-allWhen assigning a role that possesses this metarole, all role approvers (i.e. users that have an assignment to the role with the relation = approver) has to approve the assignment.Order of this schema fragment is 40.
metarole-approval-role-approvers-firstThe same as previous, but first of role approvers will decide on the request. It is expected that at most one of these two metaroles will be assigned to a given role.Order of this schema fragment is 40.

By specifying the priority (order) of approval schema fragments we can specify the ordering of steps in the overall approval schema.

Let's have a look at the metaroles.

metarole-approval-line-managers
<role xmlns="http://midpoint.evolveum.com/xml/ns/public/common/common-3" oid="a97f27fe-db6f-4d94-99cd-753d1cab82ca">
    <name>metarole-approval-line-managers</name>
    <description>Requests to assign role holding this metarole will be approved by the line manager(s)</description>
    <displayName>Metarole: approval by the line manager(s)</displayName>
    <inducement>
        <policyRule>
            <policyConstraints>
                <assignment/>
            </policyConstraints>
            <policyActions>
                <approval>
                    <compositionStrategy>
                        <order>10</order>
                    </compositionStrategy>
                    <approvalSchema>
                        <stage>
                            <name>Line managers</name>
                            <approverExpression>
                                <script>
                                    <code>midpoint.getManagersOidsExceptUser(object)</code>
                                </script>
                            </approverExpression>
                            <evaluationStrategy>allMustApprove</evaluationStrategy>
                            <outcomeIfNoApprovers>reject</outcomeIfNoApprovers>
                        </stage>
                    </approvalSchema>
                </approval>
            </policyActions>
        </policyRule>
    </inducement>
</role> 

This metarole induces a policy rule such that

  • if a role (having this policy rule) is assigned,
  • then approval of "midpoint.getManagerOidsExceptUser(object)" - i.e. managers of a given user - is requested. If there are none of them, the request is rejected.

Both allMustApprove and reject values are default ones for the particular fields, so they could be omitted if needed.

MidPoint 3.5 and 3.6 differ in the interpretation of the situation when there are no approvers defined. In 3.5, "no approvers" means the request is automatically approved. In 3.6, this behavior is configurable using outcomeIfNoApprovers property; with the default being reject. (So there is a behavior change.)

metarole-approval-security
<role oid="9c0c224f-f279-44b5-b906-8e8418a651a2"
     xmlns="http://midpoint.evolveum.com/xml/ns/public/common/common-3"
     xmlns:q="http://prism.evolveum.com/xml/ns/public/query-3">
   <name>metarole-approval-security</name>
   <description>Requests to assign role holding this metarole will be approved by the security officer(s)</description>
   <displayName>Metarole: approval by the security people</displayName>
   <inducement>
      <policyRule>
         <policyConstraints>
            <assignment/>
         </policyConstraints>
         <policyActions>
            <approval>
               <compositionStrategy>
                  <order>20</order>
               </compositionStrategy>
               <approvalSchema>
                  <stage>
                     <name>Security</name>
                     <approverRef type="OrgType">
                        <filter>
                           <q:equal>
                              <q:path>name</q:path>
                              <q:value>Security Approvers</q:value>
                           </q:equal>
                        </filter>
                        <resolutionTime>run</resolutionTime>
                     </approverRef>
                     <evaluationStrategy>firstDecides</evaluationStrategy>
                     <groupExpansion>onWorkItemCreation</groupExpansion>
                     <outcomeIfNoApprovers>reject</outcomeIfNoApprovers>
                  </stage>
               </approvalSchema>
            </approval>
         </policyActions>
      </policyRule>
   </inducement>
</role>

In this case we allocate the corresponding work item to all members of the Security Approvers org. When dealing with "groups" of users (either org or roles) there are two possibilities:

  1. A work item is created for all members of the "group" (org or role). These users can claim the work item and complete it - or release it back. These users can find the work items not in "My work items", but in "Items claimable by me" menu.
  2. Separate work item is created for each member of the "group". These users are added to the list of approvers for the given approval schema stage. Approval schema stage evaluation strategy (all must approve, first decides) is then applied to the complete list of approvers.

In midPoint 3.5, only orgs are supported for user grouping. Also, only the former option (work item per group) is supported.

Starting from midPoint 3.6, both orgs and roles can be used to group users. Both options are provided. The groupExpansion property is used to select between them; a value of byClaimingWorkItem is used for the former and onWorkItemCreation for the latter.

metarole-approval-role-approvers-first
<role oid="2dadd243-687d-4b4c-80cd-09ddfe4cbf59"
    xmlns="http://midpoint.evolveum.com/xml/ns/public/common/common-3">
    <name>metarole-approval-role-approvers-all</name>
    <description>Requests to assign role holding this metarole will be approved by the role approver(s) using "all must approve" method</description>
    <displayName>Metarole: approval by the role approver(s) - all must approve</displayName>
    <inducement>
        <policyRule>
            <policyConstraints>
                <assignment/>
            </policyConstraints>
            <policyActions>
                <approval>
                    <compositionStrategy>
                        <order>40</order>
                    </compositionStrategy>
                    <approvalSchema>
                        <stage>
                            <name>Role approvers (all)</name>
                            <approverRelation>approver</approverRelation>
                            <evaluationStrategy>allMustApprove</evaluationStrategy>
                            <outcomeIfNoApprovers>reject</outcomeIfNoApprovers>
                        </stage>
                    </approvalSchema>
                </approval>
            </policyActions>
        </policyRule>
    </inducement>
</role> 

This is quite self-explanatory. In this case, we are looking for approvers for this role by gathering users that have assigned the role with a relation of approver. If there are no such users, the request is rejected.

An execution example

When assigning role test-1 to bob, the following can be seen in the log (at the DEBUG level):

Approval schema
2017-01-13 22:58:15,045 [MODEL] [Thread-20] DEBUG (com.evolveum.midpoint.wf.impl.processes.itemApproval.ItemApprovalProcessInterface): About to start approval process instance 'Assigning test-1 to bob'
2017-01-13 22:58:15,046 [MODEL] [Thread-20] DEBUG (com.evolveum.midpoint.wf.impl.processes.itemApproval.ItemApprovalProcessInterface): Approval schema: Approval schema: null
  Description: null
  Levels:
    [
      Order: 1
      Name: Line managers
      Description: null
      Evaluation strategy: ALL_MUST_AGREE
      Outcome if no approvers: REJECT
      Group expansion: BY_CLAIMING_WORK_ITEMS
      Approver refs: []
      Approver expressions:
        [
          value: <expression xmlns="http://midpoint.evolveum.com/xml/ns/public/common/common-3"
                      xmlns:q="http://prism.evolveum.com/xml/ns/public/query-3"
                      xmlns:c="http://midpoint.evolveum.com/xml/ns/public/common/common-3"
                      xmlns:t="http://prism.evolveum.com/xml/ns/public/types-3"
                      xmlns:icfs="http://midpoint.evolveum.com/xml/ns/public/connector/icf-1/resource-schema-3"
                      xmlns:ri="http://midpoint.evolveum.com/xml/ns/public/resource/instance-3">
             <script>
                <code>midpoint.getManagersOidsExceptUser(object)</code>
             </script>
          </expression>
        ]
      Automatically approved:
        null:

      Order: 2
      Name: Security
      Description: null
      Evaluation strategy: FIRST_DECIDES
      Outcome if no approvers: REJECT
      Group expansion: ON_WORK_ITEM_CREATION
      Approver refs:
        [
          LightweightObjectRef: OrgType:a14afc10-e4a2-48a4-abfd-e8a2399f98d3 (Security Approvers)
        ]
      Approver expressions: []
      Automatically approved:
        null:

      Order: 3
      Name: Role approvers (all)
      Description: null
      Evaluation strategy: ALL_MUST_AGREE
      Outcome if no approvers: REJECT
      Group expansion: BY_CLAIMING_WORK_ITEMS
      Approver refs:
        [
          LightweightObjectRef: UserType:60dd9e6b-7403-4075-bcfa-d4566a552d41 (chef)
          LightweightObjectRef: UserType:b2a3f4ad-ad7b-4691-83d9-34d5ebb50a04 (cheese)
        ]
      Approver expressions: []
      Automatically approved:
        null:

    ]

We can see the composed approval schema there. Individual levels are renumbered to a sequence starting at 1. Approver expressions are not resolved yet; neither are "group" members (Security Approvers in this case). All of these actions are done when the particular level is executed.

For example, when first level is started, the following is output:

Starting level 1
2017-01-13 22:58:15,079 [MODEL] [Thread-20] DEBUG (com.evolveum.midpoint.wf.impl.processes.itemApproval.InitializeLoopThroughApproversInLevel): Approval process instance Assigning test-1 to bob (id 30530), level 1/Line managers: predetermined outcome: null, approvers: [null:058cf8d5-01ec-4818-87cc-6477b1a6505f (null)]

After lechuck enters his decision, it is recorded, along with level summary (as he is the only approver at this level):

Executing level 1
2017-01-13 22:58:27,957 [WORKFLOW] [http-apr-8080-exec-5] DEBUG (com.evolveum.midpoint.wf.impl.processes.itemApproval.RecordIndividualDecision): Approval process instance Assigning test-1 to bob (id 30530), level 1/Line managers: recording decision Decision: approved=true, comment=lechuck agrees, approver=lechuck/058cf8d5-01ec-4818-87cc-6477b1a6505f, date=Fri Jan 13 22:58:27 CET 2017; level stops now: null
2017-01-13 22:58:28,000 [WORKFLOW] [http-apr-8080-exec-5] DEBUG (com.evolveum.midpoint.wf.impl.processes.itemApproval.SummarizeDecisionsInLevel): Approval process instance Assigning test-1 to bob (id 30530), level 1/Line managers: result of this level: true

Now level 2 (Security) starts. Security Approvers org is resolved into two people, namely elaine and barkeeper.

Starting and executing level 2
2017-01-13 22:58:28,014 [WORKFLOW] [http-apr-8080-exec-5] DEBUG (com.evolveum.midpoint.wf.impl.processes.itemApproval.InitializeLoopThroughApproversInLevel): Approval process instance Assigning test-1 to bob (id 30530), level 2/Security: predetermined outcome: null, approvers: [UserType:b87eb285-b4ae-43c0-9e4c-7ba651de81fa (null), UserType:771d00e6-792a-4296-8b4e-c4f59f712e0f (null)]
2017-01-13 22:58:34,709 [WORKFLOW] [http-apr-8080-exec-7] DEBUG (com.evolveum.midpoint.wf.impl.processes.itemApproval.RecordIndividualDecision): Approval process instance Assigning test-1 to bob (id 30530), level 2/Security: recording decision Decision: approved=true, comment=OK, approver=elaine/771d00e6-792a-4296-8b4e-c4f59f712e0f, date=Fri Jan 13 22:58:34 CET 2017; level stops now: true
2017-01-13 22:58:34,754 [WORKFLOW] [http-apr-8080-exec-7] DEBUG (com.evolveum.midpoint.wf.impl.processes.itemApproval.SummarizeDecisionsInLevel): Approval process instance Assigning test-1 to bob (id 30530), level 2/Security: result of this level: true

Finally, level 3 - Role approvers (all) - is here. We see that there were two approvers found (cheese, chef). Out of them, cheese provided a negative response.

Starting and executing level 3
2017-01-13 22:58:34,762 [WORKFLOW] [http-apr-8080-exec-7] DEBUG (com.evolveum.midpoint.wf.impl.processes.itemApproval.InitializeLoopThroughApproversInLevel): Approval process instance Assigning test-1 to bob (id 30530), level 3/Role approvers (all): predetermined outcome: null, approvers: [UserType:b2a3f4ad-ad7b-4691-83d9-34d5ebb50a04 (cheese), UserType:60dd9e6b-7403-4075-bcfa-d4566a552d41 (chef)]
2017-01-13 22:58:45,462 [WORKFLOW] [http-apr-8080-exec-2] DEBUG (com.evolveum.midpoint.wf.impl.processes.itemApproval.RecordIndividualDecision): Approval process instance Assigning test-1 to bob (id 30530), level 3/Role approvers (all): recording decision Decision: approved=false, comment=, approver=cheese/b2a3f4ad-ad7b-4691-83d9-34d5ebb50a04, date=Fri Jan 13 22:58:45 CET 2017; level stops now: true
2017-01-13 22:58:45,511 [WORKFLOW] [http-apr-8080-exec-2] DEBUG (com.evolveum.midpoint.wf.impl.processes.itemApproval.SummarizeDecisionsInLevel): Approval process instance Assigning test-1 to bob (id 30530), level 3/Role approvers (all): result of this level: false

The process here ends; the request is not approved.

  • No labels