If you previously requested access to PQA for testing Work Package #0 - Automated Offboarding for Phase 1 the Security Team has re-issued your access in PQA.

To request access to the User Acceptance Test environment (PQA), follow the link below and provide the name, last 4-digits of EMPLID, email, contact phone number and college. Please note: Testers who participated in Phase 1 testing will already have their entry marked as "Granted" when the Security Team has opened those accounts. Any NEW testers will need to add their names to the Google Sheet:

LINK: Access Request (Google Sheet)

Testing will occur in the PQA environment. Testers will be logging on using their EMPLID. In order to access the Launchpad feature, testers performing this step must have Local Security Administrator access (ZZ Local Security Admin) This environment rests behind an OKTA instance and therefore you will be prompted to establish a password during activation.

Login Access Link: https://oktapreview.ctclink.us/ 

NOTE: If access was already granted, it will be noted in the Google sheet linked above with the word "Granted" - check the google sheet to confirm.

Testers who have already activated themselves in the PQA environment for other testing activities (concurrent UAT activities in this environment) will not be required to re-activate as this is a shared environment for all concurrent UAT activities.

Having Issues Logging In? Contact the Security Team. ([email protected])

Don't Forget: You have the ability to reset your own password in Okta. If encountering password issues, try this first. You might be able to self-help quicker!

Also, if you're struggling after regular service hours, feel free to download the Tester Login Reference Guide (below) to see if the answer you need is in here:

• Issue Details: In HCM the Search Criteria displays the Short Description of the Company Code but populates the Long Description on the parameter entry page. The data is populated from HCM the Company Table. In the FSCM and CS pillars, the Search Criteria displays the Short Description of the Company Code and populates the Long Description on the parameter entry page. The data is populated from a Custom View of the Company Table.
• Research: Program was displaying the Short Description for the Company, rather than the Long Description due to differences in the fields available in the existing view used for the source data for these values in the FSCM and CS pillars.
• Resolution: Clone existing View used in FSCM and CS and update view to include the DESC field (long description). Use the Long Description from the NEW custom view in FSCM and CS for the parameter entry.
• RETEST APPROACH (Needs Testing in FSCM & CS if Company Short Name is Abbreviated):
  • Navigate in FSCM to Main Menu PeopleTools > Security > CTC Custom > Offboarding Automation, select company code and verify that Long Description appears in Run Control page.
  • Navigate in CS to Main Menu PeopleTools > Security > CTC Custom > Offboarding Automation, select company code and verify that Long Description appears in Run Control page.
  • Pro Tester Tip: These tests can be incorporated when performing the test of items 2.0 (CS) and 6.0 or 7.0 (FSCM).

• Issue Details: In CS the security roles of ZZ SS Faculty and ZZ SS Advisory will be removed by the process, but those roles will re-apply dynamically because they are driven by the existence of an ‘Available” Instructor/Advisor table entry.  This entry cannot be removed until all payroll activity is complete, due to departing faculty needing their contract pay amounts to be recalculated in Faculty Workload. Faculty Workload will not calculate pay without the Instructor/Advisor entry in an ‘Available’.
• Research: Due to the need for the  Instructor/Advisor table entry to remain in an "Available” status until the final payroll executes or prevent Faculty Workload from performing contract recalculations these entries should not be removed by the offboarding process. An message alerting the LSA of the existence of the entry and a message in the email notification would permit the LSA to send a gentle reminder to the HR office to encourage removal at the appropriate time.
• Resolution: Write out a message in the log file and email notification as follows:
  • Log File Output (changes in blue):
    =======MANUAL REMOVAL REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING ============== (0,0)
    Employee 10100xxxx found in Curriculum Management, Instructor/Advisor Information, Instructor/Advisor Table as “Available” -- PS_INSTR_ADVISOR record (0,0)
  • Email Notification (additions in blue):
    Manual Remove Required for the following:
    Instructor/Advisor Table current showing as “Available”
• RETEST APPROACH (Needs Testing in CS Pillar):
  • Identify an employee who appears in CS with an active Instructor/Advisor table entry by running the query QCS_SEC_USER_ROLES_BY_UNIT (Enter the Institution Code - for example WA130) and search for an employee that has either the ZZ SS Faculty and ZZ SS Advisory dynamically assigned.
  • Navigate in CS to Main Menu PeopleTools > Security > CTC Custom > Offboarding Automation and enter the EMPLID of the employee who has the dynamically assigned security role that would trigger the manual removal message.
  • Review the log file CTC_OFFBOARDING to view the error message and email detail content.
  • Pro Tester Tip: While performing this test, you can incorporate the test of items 1.0 and 4.0.

• Issue Details: College members expressed concern about multiple PII data in the email notification, so the name was removed from the template, however this provides challenging for most users who do better knowing the name of the employee who was removed. This will be a code change and an update to the Template to place the Name back onto the Subject Line and add the “Masked” EMPLIDs back into the body of the email.
• Research:  A change to the program code is needed to facilitate masking of the EMPLID.
• Resolution:  Modifed program to generate notification content formatted similar to the sample below.

================= Email Notification code is Triggered ================= (0,0)
&EmailToSecAdmins = [email protected];[email protected]; (0,0)
Subject HC Off Boarding Event Triggered for Larry Staffer (0,0)
Message Hello Security Admin for Company 090
<br>
<br>
This is a notification that the ctcLink Off Boarding process has been triggered for user *****1234 - Larry Staffer
<br>
by *****5678 - Kelly Secure (0,0)

• RETEST APPROACH (Needs Testing in ALL 3 Pillars):
  • Identify an employee that can be safely offboarded in the test environment.
  • Navigate to Main Menu PeopleTools > Security > CTC Custom > Offboarding Automation in each pillar and perform the offboarding process. Review the log file names geneated with each process run.
  • Pro Tester Tip: These tests can be incorporated when performing the test of items 2.0 (CS), 5.0 or 6.0 (FSCM)  and 9.0 (HCM). Just review the email notification section when validating the test results for those tests to verify the format matches expectations.

• Issue Details: Users expressed concern that they couldn’t easily identify the log file they needed to download for auditors and review for next steps due to the confusing naming conversations used. They expressed concerns that it was difficult to tell the difference between the log files.
• Research: Log file names were reviewed and deemed confusing, therefore renaming of the log files for clarity was determined to be advisable.
• Resolution:  Revise the Log File names in ALL 3 pillars:
  • From: AE_CTC_OFFBD_AE to CTC_OFFBOARDING
  • (This name was selected during the 2/26/2025 cCCG meeting.)

  • From: CTC_OFFBD_RPT to CTC_OFFBD_PARMS

• RETEST APPROACH (Needs Testing in ALL 3 Pillars):
  • Identify an employee that can be safely offboarded in the test environment.
  • Navigate to Main Menu PeopleTools > Security > CTC Custom > Offboarding Automation in each pillar and perform the offboarding process. Review the logfile names geneated with each process run.
  • Pro Tester Tip: These tests can be incorporated when performing the test of items 2.0 (CS), 5.0 or 6.0 (FSCM)  and 9.0 (HCM).

Issue Details: In the email notifications it would be helpful for the LSA to have a reminder of what must be addressed manually AFTER the offboarding automation occurs.
Research: A code change is needed to ensure all manual removal messages are written to the email notification details.
Resolution: Add the mail removal items to the email notification as follows:

CS Sample Notice:
================= Email Notification code is Triggered ================= (0,0)
&EmailToSecAdmins = [email protected];[email protected]; (0,0)

Subject CS Off Boarding Event Triggered for Wren Brite (0,0)

Message Hello Security Admin for Company 090
<br>
<br>

This is a notification that the ctcLink Off Boarding process has been triggered for user *****6916 - Wren Brite
<br>
Manual Removal Required for the following:
Instructor/Advisor Table current showing as “Available”
<br>

by *****7261 - Kat Chantel (0,0)

 Finance Sample Notice:
================= Email Notification code is Triggered ================= (0,0)
&EmailToSecAdmins = [email protected];[email protected]; (0,0) 

Subject FS Off Boarding Event Triggered for Wren Brite (0,0) 

Message Hello Security Admin for Company 090
<br>
<br>

This is a notification that the ctcLink Off Boarding process has been triggered for user *****6916 - Wren Brite
<br>

Manual Remove Required for the following:
Buyer Setup exists.
Requester Setup exists.
Department Table Chartfield Values exists.
EMPLID of employee in Expense Approver Assignments exists.
<br>

by *****7261 - Kat Chantel (0,0)

• RETEST APPROACH (Needs Testing in the FSCM Pillar, an possibly the CS pillar if test 2.0 was not yet performed):
  • Identify an employee that can be safely offboarded in the test environment who has Buyer Setup, Requester Setup, is a Department Manager and an Expense Approver by running the query QFS_SEC_USER_ROLES_BY_UNIT to search for an employee that has the relevant security roles for assigned.
  • Navigate to Main Menu PeopleTools > Security > CTC Custom > Offboarding Automation in each pillar and perform the offboarding process. Review the logfile names geneated with each process run to verify that the manual removal messages appear as expected in Finance.
  • Pro Tester Tip: This test need only be executed for the Finance pillar, since test 2.0 is designed to capture the expected result for the CS pillar.

Issue Details: In the log file, the message alerting the LSA to the existence of Buyer Setup is listed separately from other manual removal required tasks.

Research: The Buyer Setup is being written to the wrong section of the log file and a code change is needed to place the message in the correction section.

Resolution: Move the message output to the Manual Removal Required for the Following section. Align messaging to format used for other manual entries.

RETEST APPROACH (Needs Testing in the FSCM Pillar): 

• Identify an employee that can be safely offboarded in the test environment who has Buyer Setup by running the query QFS_SEC_USER_ROLES_BY_UNIT and search for an employee that has the relevant security role assigned.
• Navigate to Main Menu PeopleTools > Security > CTC Custom > Offboarding Automation in the FSCM pillar and perform the offboarding process. Review the log file and email notification details in Finance.
• Pro Tester Tip: This test can be bundled when testing 6.0 is designed to capture the expected result.

Issue Details: In the CTC_OFFBOARDING (formerly AE_CTC_OFFBD_AE) log file, the message displaying list of security roles that existed on the User Profile BEFORE and AFTER offboarding is not in alphabetical order.

Research: The program logic could be readily modified to alphabetize the role list in the offboarding log file, however the other log file designed to provide the list of BEFORE and AFTER roles is written in execution order for the roles that a kept or deleted, therefore only the primary log file is reasonable to modify.

Resolution: Please alphabetically order the roles in the CTC_OFFBOARDING log file. 

RETEST APPROACH (Needs Testing in in ALL 3 Pillars):

• Identify an employee that can be safely offboarded in the test environment.
• Navigate to Main Menu PeopleTools > Security > CTC Custom > Offboarding Automation in each pillar and perform the offboarding process. Review the CTC_OFFBOARDING log files for each process run to confirm the security role lists are in alphabetic order.
• Pro Tester Tip: These tests can be incorporated when performing the test of items 2.0 (CS), 5.0 or 6.0 (FSCM)  and 9.0 (HCM).

Issue Details: The log file currently contains a navigational path of :

Employee 10100**** found in Setup Financials Supply Chain, Common Definitions, Design Chartfield, Define Values, Chartfield Values -- DEPT_TBL record (0,0)

This is not the accurate navigation to this configuration page.

Research: Verified in the ctcLink system that the actual menu navigation did not match the navigation in the log file and raised the request to correct the messaging in the program code.

Resolution:  Update the message to the correct navigation as follows:

Employee 10100**** found in Setup Financials/Supply Chain, Common Definitions, Design Chartfields, Define Chartfield Value, Department -- DEPT_TBL record (0,0)

RETEST APPROACH (Needs Testing in the FSCM Pillar):

• Identify an employee that can be safely offboarded in the test environment who has Department Manager security.
• Navigate to Main Menu PeopleTools > Security > CTC Custom > Offboarding Automation in the FSCM pillar and perform the offboarding process. Review the log file and email notification details in Finance.
• Pro Tester Tip: This test can be bundled when testing 6.0 is designed to capture the expected result.

Issue Details: The automated offboarding process does not remove the CTC_SEC_ANSWER_RESET Role from Portal and colleges do not have access to portal to remove the roles themselves, therefore the only way they can remove the access is to request it's removal by SBCTC staff via a Service Desk Ticket.

Research: In determining how it might be possible to get the system to remove the portal role it was determined that the most logical approach would be to add the role to the HCM pillar where only SBCTC staff may add the role manually. Role removal in HCM will automatically sync to remove the role in portal.

Resolution: When launching Offboarding Automation process from the HCM pillar, launch a process to remove the security role CTC_SEC_ANSWER_RESET on the User Profile in Portal if it exists for the user who is being offboarded.

RETEST APPROACH (Needs Testing in the HCM Pillar):

• Identify an employee that can be safely offboarded in the test environment.
• Navigate to Main Menu PeopleTools > Security > CTC Custom > Offboarding Automation in the HCM pillar and perform the offboarding process.
• Pro Tester Tip: While performing this test, you can incorporate the test of items 4.0 and 7.0.

Colleges Confirmed Complete with Sign-Off:

• (testing not yet completed)

Colleges Awaiting Sign-Off:

• Bellevue College
• Bates Technical College
• Bellingham Technical College
• Big Bend Community College
• Cascadia College
• Centralia College
• Clark College
• Clover Park Technical College
• Columbia Basin College
• Edmonds College
• Everett Community College
• Grays Harbor College
• Green River College
• Highline College
• Lake Washington Institute of Technology
• Lower Columbia College
• Olympic College
• Peninsula College
• Pierce College District
• Renton Technical College
• Seattle Colleges
• Shoreline College
• Skagit Valley College
• South Puget Sound Community College
• Spokane District
• Tacoma Community College
• Walla Walla Community College
• Wenatchee Valley College
• Whatcom Community College
• Yakima Valley College
   

Updated Presentation Materials:

Sample Test Scenario Worksheet (Displayed in Kick-Off Meeting):

The following issues were reported during the UAT period. Included is the resolution approach being taken or a notation if research or regression testing is still pending. Please note that the UAT testing period has been extended to allow time for colleges who reported issues that warranted code updates to retest.