Question
DWP
GB
Last activity: 6 Jul 2022 9:21 EDT
Notifications incorrectly sent to multiple recipients
We are using the @baseclass pxNotify to send a notification to the case owner, we have a Notification rule where the recipient is defined as the WorkParty CaseOwner.
This is working, with the case owner receiving the notification
However, in some cases a random operator also receives the same notification. This user is not in the same organisational structure as the intended recipient, but both receive the notification.
There aren't multiple case owners.
If anyone could shed light on why an incorrect operator may be added to the recipientlist, it would be much appreciated
We have only experienced this issue in production, and have been unable to replicate it in lower environments
Lventur
IN
Are you iterating the list and inside that having your logic to send mail to needed users?
If yes please make sure after each iteration you are flushing unwanted parameters (parameter in which you will be holding to who all mail needs to be triggered)...
DWP
GB
We are using a Notification rule, with the Recipients defined by data page results. The data page simply runs pyGetPartyIdentifiers report definition (on Index-WorkPartyUri class), so the only parameters sent are the current work object pzInsKey, and the value "CaseOwner" for party role.
The notifications are to appear on the screen, via the notification bell, rather than through email
DWP
GB
Some more information on this issue:
We have found that for notifications which have been sent to multiple recipients, the Data-Notification-Recipient instance has existed for longer than the case in question, which suggests that unique ID generation has gone wrong. For example
Pega-Notification instance N-001 has a CommitDateTime of May 1st,
There are 2 Data-Notifcation-Recipient instances that have a NotificationID of N-001:
One has the correct recipient ID, and a CommitDateTime of May 1st, while the other has a recipient ID that shouldn't be notified, and has a CommitDateTime that is before the case in question was even created