Fully Automated Migration (workflow, report and EA Page Layout etc..) from Sandbox to Production environment

Karthik Balakrishnan 12 months ago in System Administration updated 5 months ago 2

we want to have fully automated migration from Sandbox to Production Environment for below configurations.

  1. Workflow
  2. Report
  3. EA Page layout
  4. Generic Objects
  5. Offer Management

Below are the issues we are facing in Manual or in Workflow migration tool

  1. Yes we have document process migrating configuration and also we are using workflow migration tools also.
    1. We are 5 developers. we may work on the same environment and same workflow for release.
  2. Each person have to note each and every configuration changes, that we are making. Manual errors may happen here.
  3. After this, business will test the workflows and raise defect. Sometime it will be true defects or new change. We need to document this changes also. Manual error may happen here.
  4. There is no well defined process to delete an EA or inactive an EA. Even inactive EAs are coming in workflow Migration tool.
  5. We want to eliminate all these manual errors.
  6. Business testing our workflows and report configurations in Sandbox. With testing signoff we are migrating the workflows and configurations to PROD. Now Business don’t want to believe all UAT Signoff. They want to give another Signoff in PROD before real users facing issues. Because of the EA issue and other issues happening PROD environment on each migration. Also Business feels this will be a double work for them.

Workflow migration tool

This tool not migration all the configuration related to the workflow. example digital asset.

Not migrating huge workflow. Huge means, we a single workflow and many sub workflows are part of that

So we need to cut this workflow into piece then we need to migrate. which will create manual errors

Migrate only EAs, not Page Layouts
We are getting lot of issues, when the workflow have picklist and multiselect EAs. we are keep on raising case on this.


We understand the business ask here but this broad type of configuration migration is not currently planned in our roadmap.  However, if there are specific items we might be able to look into like for example, you mention issues with picklist and multiple selects with workflow mover.  Maybe we can make some incremental improvements around that specific tool.

Also, if you have a few specific items that happen often it might be possible to leverage our API to automate some of those steps as an alternative.

Hi Eric

I have want to split my response into 3 categories

  1. Multiple Developers
    1. Citi developer count increased and we are configuring workflows based on another workflow.
  2. We have 15 programs to onboard, 1st program will be the base for all other programs. Each program going to have 10 to 50% of changes. So we are keep on modifying the existing workflows over and over.
  3. By this approach each object count is increasing. Object means workflow, sub workflow, EA, System Type etc.. also we are modifying the names of existing object to match with new requirements.
  4. Here changes are high and number of developer are high. Which leads to lot clean-up work and pre-implementation work.
  5. Because of this, we need 2 days to implement all configuration changes of production for a particular release.
  6. Manual Work
    1. Manual work before and after migration
  7. Before
    1. Track Name changes in EA and system types
      1. Developers are creating new workflows for each program and we are reusing EAs and System types. Requirement is to change the names often.
    2. We should keep track of all the name changes.
    3. Before workflow migration we should change these names manually in production environment.
    4. Let say we missed one EA or System Type change, then new object will be created as a result of migration and it will change all the configuration around this object.
    5. Remove Digital Asset Configuration
    6. If Workflow is too big, then we should split workflow into multiple, then export.
      1. Some big workflow we built taking long time to generate Export file, we are experiencing this in CRS environment. So we are forced to de-link sub workflows. Which means after all UAT and QE signoff, we are making changes in the workflow. Which is not acceptable by Citigroup.
    7. Pre import validation
      1. This is a big work for us
    8. After
      1. Add Digital Asset configuration
    9. Page layout changes
    10. Page hook changes
    11. Work Request Changes
    12. Business rules changes
    13. Reassemble workflow small workflow into one big one.
      1. There is a big scope manual error here.
    14. Here Citi higher management have question. Now our team of 20 working for Development and testing. Release/Sprint is for one month. Once development done Tester will give their Signoff and then Product Owner (PO) will do UAT testing with Pilot end users. PO will give their UAT approval.
    15. So it’s almost 25 to 30 resources work for a month. Why you are doing manual changes after UAT and QE approval given?
    16. Report configuration
    17. Validate and promote to production
      1. For GCB we have 145 workflows. We split workflows in sub workflows in order to reuse in main ALAP workflow.
    18. Because of this approach sub workflow count is high, So after migration we are manually validate and promote production of each workflow manually.
    19. Timeline
      1. Because of all above mentioned manually work, it’s talking least 2 days to migrate all configuration to Production environment.
    20. Every other in dev team or dev ops team asking for 2 hours or max 5 hours for production implementation, we are the only Citi team asking for 2 Days for implementation.