Customized reconciliation rule

Hi All,
We have a requirement to customize the attribute from target side before comparing it in reconciliation rule. Lets say of i have configured reconciliation (target) with AD and sAMAccountName of person on AD is "msmith" then i have to compare it with OIM side attribute by concatinating "domain\" on "msmith" so that if my oim user id is "domain\msmith" then it should match with "msmith" on AD side. Is it possible by some customization or OOTB anyway. Please put your thoughts.
Can we use transformation rule for this requirement? if so how can we customize these?
TIA.......

Thanks Kevin...but transformation rules as per documentation only talks about substring, ends string and all. Do we have any option to add few chars on target attribute side before comparing. Also i cannot use "ends with" operator as in that case if "msmith" record is coming from target side and if i have two oim records "UK\adamsmith" and "uk\msmith", then rule will return me muliple users matched. Can we add more transformation rules/adapters in reconciliation rule. TIA...

Similar Messages

Custom Reconciliation/Trusted Reconcilation Task

Hello Experts,
I am working on a custom connector development stuffs. I have developed a task for reconcilation and it worked as exp expected. Will this also work for Trusted Soruce Reconciliation??
I have checked the "trusted source checkbox" and then set the reconciliation matching rule "No Match - Create User" but its not creating the target system users in OIM.
Am I missing anything?? Any things else I should do to make the code works for trusted source recon?
Please assist me.
Thanks
INIYA

For a "Create Your Own" trusted resource, you need the following:
Resource Object with checkbox for Trusted.
Reconciliation Fields on Resource Object to provide all the fields required (unless you use entity adapters) such as User ID, First Name, Last Name, User Role, User Type, Organization Key, and Password.
Reconciliation Action Rules to have create user when no match found.
Provisioning Process Definition with no additional tasks.
Reconciliation Field Mappings on the Provisioning Process Definition to map all your recon fields to your oim user field. Don't forget your key field.
Reconciliation Rules to map the incoming value to the user profile value to create a new user.
-Kevin

Post Directly To Customer Reconciliation Account

Dear Experts,
We are facing the following problem in one of our Clients system.
They have uploaded the opening balance in a Customer Reconciliation GL Account ( Its an alternate reconciliation account ), here onwards reffered to as XYZ.
Now after 6 months of Go-Live they realized that the opening balance was uploaded incorrectly.
Their original entry was like this:
Dr. XYZ 100
Cr. Data Migration GL 100
When the try to reverse the above entry they get the following error: "Account XYZ in company code ABCD cannot be directly posted to" Message No: F5354
Now i have two questions ( Disclaimer: These questions might sound very silly, but trust me I am seriously lost here. )
1. How was this entry posted in the first place? I have checked the change logs for GL XYZ, no data exists that shows that the reconciliation indicator has been changed. The reconciliation Indicator is customer from beginning.
2. How to reverse the above entry?
Any usefull suggestions will be generously rewarded.
Regards,
Priyank.

Dear All,
I am sorry for replying so late to this Thread.
We found the root cause of the problem. Some one has changed the Table Entries (SKB1-MITKZ) for the GL Master of Customer Reconciliation Account. This was the reason that the GL account was showing as Customer Reconciliation Account.
Now when we tried to reverse these changes the system didnt allow us as it needed some entry in that field and keeoing it blank was not an option. Even the input help didnt show any blank field.
So in order to overcome the above shortcoming, we wrote an ABAP program to change the field value to Blank.
So learning is that you should never use Table Edit without having proper knowledge of how Tables behave.
Thanks all for your Support.
Am Closing the thred.
Good Bye.

Reconciliation Rules in OIM 9.1

Hi,
I need your input in the below mentioned problem.Lets assume we call the field UserLogin in OIM and UserID in Target System ( Target Systems are Exchange and Active Directory).
A Sample UserLogin is A123456 and a sample UserID is 8123456 Both of these are fields are 7 characters long.
In the Reconciliation rule, we can compare last 6 characters of both UserLogin (OIM) and UserID (AD) by using endswith function and transforming by using substring function in Recon Rules of the Design Console, but the difficulty is with second part of the rule is, If the above condition evaluates to true,we want to add one more recon rule, which should check whether UserLogin (OIM) field in starts with number say 8.
can you please let us know, how and what is the efficient/best way of writing this recon rule.
Thanks for your help in Advance
Regards

http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E21764_01/doc.1111/e14309/resmgt.htm#CHDDJCAH
Check : Reconciliation Fields Tab section

How do you create custom validation rule in WS 9.2?!?!?!

Hello,
I am using Workshop 9.2. I created a page flow, and want to do some form validations.
I saw the simple 9.2 example, but it is only good for very basic validation, what if you have to validate the form field against a database, must you write a custom validation rule? HOW would you do this in 9.2 so that will still stay with the workshop/netui paradigm?
http://beehive.apache.org/docs/1.0.1/netui/validation.html
Keith

Hi Keith,
Staying within the declarative validation framework the answer is probably that you do need to write a custom validation rule and refer to it using the @Jpf.ValidateCustomRule annotation.
The NetUI Annotation Reference shows how the Struts validations are supported via the framework.
http://beehive.apache.org/docs/1.0.1/netui/annotations/pageflow_annotations.html
Specifically, if you look through the @Jpf.Validate* annotations, while most of these are "canned" common validations, there are a few that are more open-ended, such as @Jpf.ValidateMask and @Jpf.ValidateValidWhen.
Those two let you write the validation logic in the annotation while @Jpf.ValidateCustomeRule only refers to a custom rule in the struts validator file.
In any case, there is a validation rule editor which should help in authoring and managing the annotations. In the Page Flow Explorer or Page Flow Editor just right click on the action or form bean bean of interest and choose Validation Rules and the appropriate scope.
I hope that's of some use,
Troy

Adding custom navigation rules results in strange behavior

Hello,
We'd like to add navigation rules to our application. To avoid post-JHeadstart-generation-steps we created an extra faces-config-custom.xml file which contains the navigation rules. When adding this file to the web.xml and run the aplication we encounter strange behavior
- Errors are shown in duplicate
- 'Transaction completed' messages are not shown
Try adding the underneath faces-config-custom.xml to a standard HR demo project and you will get the same behavior.
(1) What is the reason of this strange behavior?
(2) How can we add custom navigation rules, without having to do post creation steps?
Regards Leon
[faces-config-custom.xml]
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1252" ?>
<!DOCTYPE faces-config PUBLIC
"-//Sun Microsystems, Inc.//DTD JavaServer Faces Config 1.1//EN"
"http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd">
<faces-config xmlns="http://java.sun.com/JSF/Configuration">
<navigation-rule>
<from-view-id>*</from-view-id>
<navigation-case>
<from-outcome>BezwaarVerzoeken</from-outcome>
<to-view-id>/pages/inboeken/BezwaarVerzoeken.jspx</to-view-id>
</navigation-case>
<navigation-case>
<from-outcome>LosseOpdrachten</from-outcome>
<to-view-id>/pages/inboeken/LosseOpdrachten.jspx</to-view-id>
</navigation-case>
</navigation-rule>
</faces-config>
[Add faces-config-custom.xml to web.xml]
<context-param>
<param-name>javax.faces.CONFIG_FILES</param-name>
<param-value>/WEB-INF/faces-config-custom.xml,...

Leon,
When you perform a drag and drop operation, JDeveloper adds the following lines to the faces-config.xml:
<lifecycle>
<phase-listener>
Oracle.adf.controller.faces.lifecycle.ADFPhaselistener
</phase-listener>
</lifecycle>
However, JHeadstart uses its own subclass of ADFPhaselistener, and defines the lifecycle element in JhsCommon-beans.xml. Due to a bug in ADF, ADF does not look for the lifecycle element in other files than faces-config, and adds its own element in faces-config.xml If you remove these lines, everything works fine again.
To prevent this from happening again, you can move the following entry from JhsCommon-beans.xml to faces-config.xml:
<lifecycle> <phase-listener>oracle.jheadstart.controller.jsf.lifecycle.JhsADFPhaseListener</phase-listener>
</lifecycle>
And then make a custom template for JhsCommon-beans.vm where you remove this entry.
Steven Davelaar,
JHeadstart team.

Reconciliation Rule for Trusted Sources

Is it possible to create a reconciliation rule for a trusted source based a user-defined field that stores a GUID? By default, OIM uses the user id in the reconciliation rule, however if the user id changes on the trusted source a recon. rule based on user id will never find a match - if I understand how the recon. rule works.
Has anyone attempted to use something other than user id in a recon. rule for a trusted source?
Thanks

I have a doubt here..please clear if i am able to sucessfully explain...in reconcilliation action we wrote that "No Match Found" --> "create User". it is working fine (for me it is Sun LDAP on other side)..but issue is that when it create a user in OIM...under resource profile no resource is coming as attached...then how can one knows that this user already had a profile in LDAP and need not created a new one and also we cannot provision the same user to LDAP as it is already there...means we cannot link these two user profiles (OIM and LDAP one)....but for feasible scenerion it should be...can anyone tell me where i am wrong and what other configuration needs to be done if it is a feasible scenerion..

Custom Design Rules Error: importClass is not defined

Hi everybody
i have a problem with the Data Modeler 4.1 (Beta) custom design rules.
in the version 4.0.3 i have some custom design rules with the option: importClass(javax.swing.JOptionPane);
for the error exception and messageboxes.
- in the version 4.0.3, this option works just fine
- in version 4.1, this option raises an error
If this option is changed in Version 4.1? or where is the error?
Thanx for any idea, suggestion...
Martin

I have found the solution!
in the version 4.0.3 the Data Modeler used Mozilla Rhino as engine and in the version 4.1 Oracle Nashorn.
So in version 4.1 you must load compatibility script for use the ImportClass functionality.
Example:
// Load compatibility script
load("nashorn:mozilla_compat.js");
//Import der Java Class
importClass(javax.swing.JOptionPane);

Custom Design rules on table partitions

Hi
I need to create several custom design rule at the table partition level.
for example one of the rule is that
for all table partitions
if a table partition name begins with M
    then it should not be compressed
    and also should not be in tablespace called xyzHow do i go about enforcing this rule using the design rules

Hi,
here is simple example, you can improve it easily. In fact you have two rules and it's better to create two rules.
var ruleMessage;
var errType;
var table;
//define the function
function checkPartitions(){
ruleMessage = "";
model = table.getDesignPart();
tp = model.getStorageDesign().getStorageObject(table.getObjectID());
result = true;
if(tp!=null){
partitions = tp.getPartitions().toArray();
for(var i=0;i<partitions.length;i++){
   partition = partitions;
if(partition.getName().startsWith("M") && "YES".equals(partition.getDataSegmentCompression())){
result = false;
ruleMessage = "Partition " + partition.getName()+" for table "+tp.getLongName()+ " cannot be compressed";
break;
tablespace = partition.getTableSpace();
if(tablespace!=null && "xyz".equals(tablespace.getName()) && partition.getName().startsWith("M")){
result = false;
ruleMessage = "Partition " + partition.getName()+" for table "+tp.getLongName()+ " cannot be in tablespace xyz";
break;
return result;
//call the function
checkPartitions();
you should define it for "Table" object. And your physical model should be open.
Philip
Edited by: Philip Stoyanov on Jan 10, 2012 4:53 AM

Implementing a custom matching rule for AR lockbox

I need to Implement a custom matching rule for AR lockbox.
Client has a requirement like to match with pack slip.
Any one have the coding for this?
Kindly help me to solve this.

I need to Implement a custom matching rule for AR lockbox.
Client has a requirement like to match with pack slip.
Any one have the coding for this?
Kindly help me to solve this.

OIM Target reconciliation - Applying logic on field used in reconciliation rule

Hi All,
I am working on OIM 11g R1. We are doing target accounts reconciliation from AD using OOTB connectors. samAccountName is the field used for reconciliation matching rules. Now my requirement is to apply some logic on this field(For ex: Removing whitespaces at the end of the field value or adding 0 as prefix) before the reconciliation rules are evaluated to find the match in OIM.
Could someone help me on implementing this.
Thanks.
Rgds,
Mounika

This can be achieved creating a class for doing the data transformation and making an an entry in the ReconTransformation lookup against the field for which transformation is required. Please follow the link - http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E22999_01/doc.111/e20347/extnd_func.htm#CMSAD357

How to define complex reconciliation rule

i have to do reconciliation with some complex rule but if i see reconciliation rule we can only define simple rule like userid = samAccountName. Please suggest how we can define complex rule.
thanks in adv.

http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E14049_01/doc.9101/e14061/busrule.htm#BIBJEFCG

Reconciliation rule

Hi All,
Is it possible to configure multiple reconciliation rule for a particular resource (AD, LDAP) as per container (OU). If possible please post the detail.
As per my understanding we can configure the recon rule for a particular resource only with single logical operator (or/and).
TIA...

Hi Martin,
I tried to achieve this for Novell eDirectory.
For this requirement, I have created a Resource Object Form, a process form under form designer with all the mandatory fields (for provisioning) and then create a process and attach Resource object as object name and form as table name.
I tried to assign this resource to any user and it gives me DOBJ.INSERT_FAILED error. There is nothing helpful in the logs. Could you please tell me what i am doing wrong or if any required configuration is missing.
PS-- For now i am using the create user method and using the same adapter under integration with all the required mappings. In the form i have also created an ITResource field and assign the value eDirectory IT Resource.

References for developing Reconciliation Rules for OIM 11GR1

Good Day!
Hi Folks!
I would like to ask if you can share some references or any documents which tackles on the development or creation of reconciliation rules for OIM 11GR1. Currently, we are trying to pull users from a SAP system and provision them to MS AD. Currently, we want to develop reconciliation rules such that we can avoid doing manual ad-hoc link.
Aside from the documentation guide, are there any other references there available in helping us to develop recon rules from a simple definition and from there maybe we can pick it up to define a complex one?
All answers are appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
Regards,
Jeff

reconciliation rule support very limited operator. find the below link
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11223_01/doc.910/e11217/cnnctrcmpnts.htm#CEGJHBDC

Xellerate - Reconciliation Rule definition: Tokenize

Hi Gurus,
does anyone know how the TOKENIZE transformation work in the Reconciliation Rule definition?
My Rule Element is:
User Profile Data: Last Name
Operator: Contains
Attribute: TargetCustomField
Transform: Tokenize
Can you help me to set properly the Rule Element Prorperties:
Delimiters
Token number
Space Delimiter
In my case i want to match
Last Name: "Ferrari"
with
TargetCustomField: "Mr. Ferrari Hector"
Thanxs in advance,
Ettore

What's the OIM version which you are working on? If 11G then be sure to click the "Create Recon Profile" on the resource object to make the rule work.
-Bikash

Customized reconciliation rule

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for