OOB ACL on sc_req_item Restricting Read Access for Fulfillers – Need Help

saint
Tera Expert

 

This OOB ACL is restricting my fulfillers from viewing the RITM record under a REQ even when they're the requestors . I'm considering creating a separate ACL for the itil role to override this behavior. Is that the right approach? I prefer not to assign the asset role to my fulfillers at this time.

saint_0-1752675842971.png

 

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

RathanK
Kilo Guru

Hello @saint 

 

Try using the script based ACL at this point.

Try using the below condition, let me know if this work for you.

 

gs.getUserID() == current.request.requested_for

 

 

If you found my response helpful, please give it a thumbs-up and designate it as solution accepted to support fellow developers and admins.


Regards,
Rathan K

View solution in original post

4 REPLIES 4

RathanK
Kilo Guru

Hello @saint 

 

Try using the script based ACL at this point.

Try using the below condition, let me know if this work for you.

 

gs.getUserID() == current.request.requested_for

 

 

If you found my response helpful, please give it a thumbs-up and designate it as solution accepted to support fellow developers and admins.


Regards,
Rathan K

BrianProvencher
Giga Guru

I think you have 2 options. You can either create a new ACL for the itil role, as you mentioned. Or you can elevate to security admin and edit the current ACL to include the itil role.

Ankur Bawiskar
Tera Patron

@saint 

there is already an OOTB read ACL on sc_req_item which gives itil, sn_request_write role users access to RITM.

Your fulfillers should have itil role and then they should see the RITM records.

AnkurBawiskar_1-1752676820400.png

 

If my response helped please mark it correct and close the thread so that it benefits future readers.

Regards,
Ankur
Certified Technical Architect  ||  9x ServiceNow MVP  ||  ServiceNow Community Leader

saint
Tera Expert

Hey everyone, thanks for the quick responses! After digging deeper into the system, I found that the OOB ACLs were deactivated to support some past requirements. I'm currently looking into the root cause and will proceed with a solution based on that. Really appreciate your support. I will keep this thread open till next week, and will come back if i have any following questions, or will mark a correct response from above based on the best recommended solution. Thank you once again!