Another thing that I messed about with while “making FIM fit”…
I wanted to manage certain non-real people accounts. I did not need them to be present in the portal, as the code would manage the accounts alone. Therefore I needed to project them to the MV for the code to take effect.
To do this, I created a copy of the person object, trimmed a few unnecessary attributes – the new object was called “functionalID”
Now, after bringing those ID’s in as functionalID’s, I realised that some of the administrative accounts needed access to the portal to manage the real user accounts. So, I exported all functionalID’s to the portal, they were not visible, as the portal did not know what to do with them. After fiddling about, extending the portal schema and creating MPR’s etc. I was able to view and manage those ID’s. However, I wanted the administrative ID’s to be able to log into the portal to do their day to day work.
Now annoyingly I can’t find the link, but to summarise it stated that only person type objects could login to the portal! Thus, my copy of person type would never be able to login! Arrhhh!
So, a little rethink….. treat all functionalID’s as functional’s except those that were in the OU containing the Administrative ID’s that I wanted to have access to the portal – treat them as person objects – as shown below:
'Those people who need to administer FIM, need a user account in the portal, so treat them as such and Project!
ElseIf csentry("employeeID").IsPresent Then
'Real users - e.g. those created by the User Office process and those historical users no longer in CDR (Initial Pre-Load) - But CDR is authoratative for all new users - so Projection occurs there also - this handles "normal" users - e.g. those fed from CDR directly.
Throw NewUnexpectedDataException("Unreferenced User type="&csentry("samAccountName").Value)
However, after all this I decided that it was far simpler to just treat all ID’s as person objects, and then flag those that were functional’s (with a boolean flag). That flag is then used to manage the accounts in code and can be used to exclude those accounts from view in the portal. Flag setting is done on the import from AD, using specific strings within the DN as the criteria:
Boolean Flag Setting Example
Visual Basic .NET
While implementing FIM, I was looking for ways to filter out old records from the HR database. Note that this code is no longer used (the SQL view providing the data does it for me), but it provides a nice simple example of how to use the FilterForDisconnection function.
I used the following bit of code in the HR MA, to filter out all users whose end date had passed plus 190 days. Those that matched those criteria were made disconnectors.
The source of my “HR” data does not always return consistent data.
A classic example of this is employeeEndDate, where the time value returned by the HR DB is often 00:00:00, but could be anything else!
The result of this is that if the user disablement rule says – use date/time of now – compare it to the employeeEndDate; if the end date has passed, then disable the account. Thus if the time value is inconsistent, you will get inconsistent user disablement’s occurring
So, to fix this in code, I did this – on the import from HR:
Visual Basic .NET
'CDR attributes required are: EndDate
'Code to define the employeeEndDate in the MV and Portal - needs to be in the correct format!
As part of the FIM implementation within my organisation, I needed to replicate the management of automatic security and distribution groups.
Now this is ugly, not nice/ ideal etc, but to get it done – I need to avoid any changes to the Status Quo – my org does not like change! I can work on making things better later in time.
The current process has an interesting concept of what automatic means.
In that, where normally, an attribute e.g. representing the Finance dept. might be used to identify members of a group; the filter identifying members might use organisational attributes; there might also be users who do not fit within that structure who need to be added. Or there might be people who should be within a group because their organisational attributes match the filter, but for whatever reason, they do not want to be a member of the group.
So essentially, the current filter process might provide organisational attributes to populate the group, but there may also be additional explicit includes and excludes. All automatic groups also remove users who have been disabled.
Note that the organisation structure is not hierarchical
When I initially started looking at how to implement this in FIM, I thought that is was simply not possible. I looked at using http://www.wapshere.com/missmiis/who-needs-group-populator-when-you-have-multivalue-tables, but thought that this was too complicated for what I wanted to achieve – initial population would be troublesome, plus another interface would be required. I considered making the original automatic groups into manual groups then creating new (truly) automatic attribute based groups, and then nesting those within the manual group – but this would involve “change”, so this is now the long term aim, but will not be implemented immediately. Note that this method does not handle the explicit removes well either, they would be to be excluded within the filter.
An example of a “complicated” filter and the resultant GUI:
/Person[(EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (emailAddressPresent= ‘True’) and ((Site = ‘NORTH’) or (Site = ‘SOUTH’)) and (Department = ‘FIN’) and (not(AccountName = ‘User1’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User2’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User3’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User4’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User5’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User6’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User7’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User8’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User9’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User10’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User11’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User12’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User13’))]
The filter above is placed within the Filter attribute of the group. Accessible via Advanced view, Extended Attributes: <Filter xmlns:xsi=”http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance” xmlns:xsd=”http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema” Dialect=”http://schemas.microsoft.com/2006/11/XPathFilterDialect” xmlns=”http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/enumeration”>Filter goes here</Filter>>
If I break down this filter:
The main “Automatic” bit: (EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (emailAddressPresent= ‘True’) and ((Site = ‘NORTH’) or (Site = ‘SOUTH’)) and (Department = ‘FIN’) = Enabled accounts, who have an email address (this is a distribution list), who are on Site NORTH or SOUTH and whose Department attribute is “FIN” Note that EmployeeStatus, emailAddressPresent and Site are custom attributes within the MV and Portal, that are populated via a classic import rules from HR/AD.
The explicit add and removes: (not(AccountName = ‘User1’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User2’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User3’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User4’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User5’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User6’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User7’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User8’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User9’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User10’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User11’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User12’)) or ((EmployeeStatus = ‘Enabled’) and (AccountName = ‘User13’)) = Remove/ disallow User1 (explicit remove), then add (explicit add) each of those other accounts, only if they are enabled (disabled accounts are removed from groups).
Nice eh? :/
A little note about (emailAddressPresent= ‘True’), this MV attribute is populated on the import from AD. It is defined by the presence of a mail address that matches those that are valid for the organisation and that the persons msExchHomeServerName is present. It is then exported to the Portal with the same name, for use in these filters:
Visual Basic .NET
'AD attributes required: mail and msExchHomeServerName
If csentry("mail").IsPresent And csentry("msExchHomeServerName").IsPresent Then
'Valid/allowed email suffixes are defined in the following array (amend as appropriate):
(10-9-15) I had a few issues with the script referred to – namely the second to last line, which had “$importObject | Import-FIMConfig$undone.Count” , “$undone.Count” needs to (at least) be on a new line – it doesn’t seem to do anything anyway, so may just be removed….
I added a few more references to the filters, group names etc., as I discovered, during debugging, that my initial input file referred to the samAccountName and Filter, rather than the displayName plus Filter. Additionally, some groups had gone plus others renamed since I did the initial filter file – before the school summer holidays…, so the script highlights those.
Error suggested that the filter had not been applied, but it had. Further investigation shows that the order of the filter was incorrect – this and this and (that or that) and this…. should have been this and this and this and that or that.
Odd, did the entry via the portal – added OK..
Missing “]” from the end of the filter
Validating each group membership will take some time…. that’s the job I’ll start tomorrow…..
(11-9-15) OK, so been validating today….didn’t really fancy the idea of doing this group by group, so dug out some old scripts and put together some new ones to make my life easier and consistent….
First – one of my old VBS scripts to get the desired group members from AD:
Still waiting for the second script to output some of the larger groups…. once complete, I’ll use WinMerge to compare the resulting files. If I constructed all of the XPath filters correctly, they should all match!
3. Some of my filters were incorrect – minor changes.
(16-09-15) – So I have now removed all disabled users from Automatic groups – the WinMerge results are much nicer now – only 46 files are different. Some results are unusual, where a user may be a member in Prod, but not FIM or vice versa – I now need to work through these to see what needs to be sorted.
On a side note….. a colleague at another university remarked that he wished to replicate the filtering method that he already had in place for group management – namely LDAP queries. Now although the FIM portal can’t natively do a direct LDAP query, you can always populate MV and Portal attributes with the data that you wish to query upon. For example within my org the DN of users is not a simple matter, so the DN is calculated by a classic import flow rule from HR. Thus, the DN is already stored in the MV. I could choose to export that data into a new Portal attribute and then make that part of the group filter.
This is one of the things that I really like about FIM – the ability to make it do what you want, with a little creative thinking!
While looking at how we were going to define an email address, there were a couple of options.
Many accounts already have a mailbox, so I just want to provide an email address and the other required attributes to those who fall into scope and did not have a mailbox already.
Note that the compulsory attributes required for a basic mailbox are: homeMDB, msExchHomeServerName & mailNickname. By adding the mail attribute, I am defining the primary SMTP address that the person will get. See here for more details: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/ff472471.aspx
However, there was some fear that if enabled it might have some undesirable effects on those existing mailboxes. So, I went back to code to do the work. The use of Utils.FindMVEntries is not necessarily expensive in this case as the number of people falling into scope at any one time should be low and the likelihood of the first choice not being unique is also relatively low.
Because my organisation is multi-tenant and multi site, there are a number of rules defined to get to the correct suffix and then a valid prefix/ suffix pair.
The MV attribute “provisionExchangeMailbox” is defined in the MV as the person is sync’ed from “HR” via an advanced flow rule. Here is the code:
When I was developing the code to define an initial password for new accounts that were due to be provisioned, I needed a way of seeing the password string that was generated.
I found it quite difficult to pick through the documentation around the subject (logging) in order to get this working, so have provided a generic example below.
I ended up using the logging dll throughout the project, to record certain anomalies.
The log will be written to the MAData folder of the MA that the code resides in. The documentation states that the file location can be changed, but I never got it to work. I’m happy with the default it is written to anyway.
Note that you need to add the logging dll to the project before you make use of it:
'Within the "Public Class MAExtensionObject" section, add:
'Date&Logginglevel variables forlogging files:
Dim dtDateNowDay AsInteger=Date.Now.Day
Dim dtDateNowMonth AsInteger=Date.Now.Month
Dim dtDateNowYear AsInteger=Date.Now.Year
Dim loggingLevel AsInteger=0
'With the Sub orFunctionthat you want logging-e.g."Public Sub MapAttributesForImport"
Dim dtFileTime AsDateTime
'Define Logfile Name then setup the logfile
Dim logFileName As String = dtDateNowDay & "-" & dtDateNowMonth & "-" & dtDateNowYear & "_MyMA_Import.log"
'Withinasync rule,where you want tolog something-e.g.what the UPN isgoing tobe set to: