Forum Stats

  • 3,758,159 Users
  • 2,251,346 Discussions
  • 7,870,074 Comments

Discussions

Modified an E1 orchestration to use a new service request connector but it only works for me.

User_KSD2R
User_KSD2R Member Posts: 1 Red Ribbon

I probably picked the wrong category but it was the closest I could find. My question pertains to JDE E1 Orchestrator.

I had an application(UBE calling BSSV) in PD that was calling an Orchestration(ORC_A) that used a connector(SRE_A). BSSV was using B98ORCH to call the application - passing a JSON string but receiving back a formatted response (using the output values) because of string size limitations with B98ORCH, we decided to bypass it and make the AIS calls directly thru code. I created a new connector(SRE_B) whereby both request and response were simply a JSON string. ORC_A was modified to call SRE_B. Everything worked seamlessly in our PY environment.

Problems began when we promoted UDOs and BSSV to PD. If any user tried other than myself executes the UBE, the Orchestration appears to be using the 'old' connector - SRE_A. which cause the parsing to fail. I know this, based on the JSON response that is being returned when we turn on logging. If I run it, it executes flawlessly.

I have been working with our CNC for days now trying to resolve this problem. PY and PD are supposed to have the same configuration/security etc. but clearly something is different. The first thought was that some of the AIS servers may have been cached so they were all bounced. All security on the UDOs and USERs were looked at and no differences identified. So far nothing

We are on E1 9.2 tools release 9.2.3.3 using Orchestrator studio 7.2.0.0

Has anyone ever experienced anything like this or have any ideas as to what we may have overlooked.

My gut tells me that if I simply create a new orchestration (ORC_B) to call the new connector (SRE_B) and re-promote everything that all will be good again but I would really like to get to the bottom of this issue. At this point our PY environment is obviously not truly reflective of PD.

Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks

Beth