Enhancement: V3.2 of SailPoint's ServiceNow ServiceCatalog App released

Description

:bangbang: ** New version of ServiceNow Catalog for ISC v3.2 Released **

Version 3.2 of SailPoint’s ServiceNow Catalog v3.2 for ISC is now available for install.

What is the Problem?

Multiple new features have been introduced based on the feedback of customer, new features in ServiceNow and roadmap to improve the overall UI experience.

What is the Solution?

Following new features have been introduced in the version v3.2 in the SailPoint’s App for ServiceCatalog for ISC (IdentityNow).

  • Integrate with global search.
  • Skip user selection for non-managers/non-admins
  • Recommendations with Ignore
  • SoD details in approval request ticket
  • Approval Flexibility for OAuth2 connections
  • Relating ServiceDesk ticket for raised Access Request.
  • Improved Approval Flexibility with Auto approval options and standardised REQ/RITM states

Please refer to the product documentation for the detailed information

Who is affected?

Customers using SailPoint’s ServiceNow App to manage access.

Action Required

Detailed instructions while considering upgrade to this version is mentioned here:

Important Dates

This release is available for download from from ServiceNow Store effective May 8th’ 2024

Customer Communications

SaaS Updates | Developer Community | Documentation

What is Next Up?

Information about next version can be found here

Additional Resources

Please refer to for all information related to ServiceNow SailPoint integrations here

2 Likes

Hey Kamesh, I was hoping at some point we might gain some more flexible options with the approval definitions. Right now we’re limited to either using the exact object name, or a “default” name like SAILPOINT DEFAULT ACCESS PROFILE DEFINITION

I’d like the ability to leverage some sort of search criteria to figure out which definitions need to be applied to a given request, for example

Definition name: Privileged AD Entitlements
Condition: source.name:“Active Directory” AND privileged:true

That way for some AD entitlements or access profiles, I can use one type of approval flow (manager followed by access owner for example) for privileged AD entitlements, but maybe for something less risky like distro groups, I can skip the manager approver and just send it to the access approver.

1 Like

Thanks Mark for raising this.

This is a new feature request and will be evaluated.
Can you please raise the same request in our Ideas portal.

Certainly, will do.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there is currently no ability to bypass approvals completely, correct? It seems the approval rules are required to return an array of valid ServiceNow user sys_ids. If your rule does not return anything, the validation fails and the workflow is cancelled.

GOV-I-3560

I also take exception to the inclusion of this auto-reject rule

If I am an application owner and a user contacts me directly about getting access, I should be able to submit a request on their behalf and be able to approve it as the access owner.

I don’t understand why this would be an issue.

I am not attempting to approve my own access. “Requestor” is not the same person as Requested For, so there is no conflict.

Requestor is not even a ServiceNow field. The script include SP_SPNT_SNOW_INT_WORKFLOW_MLAUtils is referencing opened_by

image

This should be removed or at least made optional through a system property flag. What’s funny is that is an option depending on what type of approval rule you have chosen.

You cannot bypass the opened_by being the same as the returned approver for these approval rule types

  • ServiceNow Group
  • ServiceNow Script
  • IdentityNow Governance Group

But you can if you use one of these approval rule types

  • ServiceNow User
  • IdentityNow Owner
  • IdentityNow Manager

You have the ability to allow the person who opens the request to still be an approver by checking true for the system property x_sap_intidn.self_approval_auto_approve.

The latter types of approval rules call a different validation function. Why is there a difference in how they’re evaluated?

image

Hi Kamesh,

Is there any further documentation around setting up the default approval group?

We’ve populated the group “SailPoint Access Governance Group” with active users, however the request gets rejected with error “missing approvers in definition and ServiceNow default group.”

Does the group require some other setup or ServiceNow access role to function?

Hi Louise,

Are those users mapped properly to ServiceNow users?

No other setup is required. I assume we are missing some other information here. Can you please raise a support ticket so that we can investigate and guide you accordingly. Please tag this discussion in the ticket.

Hi Kamesh,

Yes those users in the group are mapped to active ServiceNow users.
I’ve raised a support ticket and tagged this post.
Thanks!

Just a quick question, currently if a request fails it is not retried, is there any plans for future releases to implement this?

Renee,

Can you add this to the IDEA portal, this will help us to track this ask,

1 Like