Skip to main content

Here’s the setup:

I have a learning plan with a single course in it.

There are no days of validity settings in the learning plan.

There are no days of validity settings in the course.

I have an enrollment rule mapped to the learning plan and enrollment days of validity in the enrollment rule.

 

If I enroll a user (chrometester) through the enrollment rule, for that user, at the course level, it attaches start and end days of validity. It also has start and end days of validity at the learning plan level.

If I enroll a user (firefoxtester) manually into the learning plan and select enrollment days of validity through that screenflow there is no course level enrollment day of validity set. There is only learning plan level days of validity.

Here is a screenshot of the end result at the course level.

 

So, my question is. Why do I get different results? Shouldn’t the enrollment rule mimic the manual process? I have asked support to take a look, but I don’t have an answer yet.

 

I honestly prefer the result I get using the enrollment rule because it addresses some other issues I have with the user experience and how notifications work. Having the dates set for both the course and the learning plan solves that.

However, it creates a problem for me in that the enrollment rule only kicks in when someone is added to the group. And I can’t map the group to the enrollment rule if it’s empty. And if I get a different result by manually enrolling users in the learning plan...*sigh*

 

Any thoughts on this dilemma?

Seems like a gap in coding and QA...did you reach out to support to ask about this? It may be a bug.

​@lrnlab  Yes, support created a ticket to hopefully answer why they are different. But in the meanwhile I would love a way to use the enrollment rule approach with an existing group. Any ideas?

Not sure what you mean...can you please elaborate?

Are you saying you have a group of users already assigned the LP and you want to “re-assign” them to get the proper validity dates to appear?

Sorry. I was wishing for a way to map the enrollment rule to a group and have it trigger for the users already in the group. Which I know it can’t do. And I know that the usual solution is to manually assign the users in the group to the learning plan and then the ER takes over for new adds to the group.

I was trying to think of a work around solution to get to the end result I see with the enrollment rule.

If you are not so worried about the LP enrolment date, you could try to unassigned them all, then change your group to add an attribute you know will not include any users, save and process, than remove that attribute in order to re-populate the group and the enrolment rules should now take over for everyone in the group.

You could also try this without unenrolling users to see if the rule adds the validity dates - might be the one you want to try first. 

If you want to be really safe, make a copy of you LP and create a small group with 1 user already enrolled and another assign via the group. The you can recreate the entire process before deciding if it works and if you can apply to your existing LP.

​@lrnlab The users are not currently enrolled in the learning plan. This was the test run for a series of upcoming learning plans, which don’t have just one course, or just a single group, etc.

I would prefer both the learning plan date and the course dates to be populated. I can’t remember off the top of my head the specifics, but I’ve had to balance the user experience and the desired notifications. I believe it was a notification for reminding people they need to complete the thing went with one validity date level, and then what the user sees on their task page went with the other.

In my tests I was not able to map a group to the enrollment rule unless it had at least one user. I considered creating an automatic group that only brings in a handful of ‘test’ users, then mapping that group to the enrollment rule, then changing the automatic group criteria to match the real group criteria……..that just feels tricky and a little risky since it’s not a simple group criteria.

Using the automatic groups will at least make sure your rules are being followed so waster to find any gaps, etc. You can always manually add users to an automatic group if it’s too hard to find them; or I use the “email” option (out usernames are mostly email anyway) to find any scragglers.

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings