Can you use 'execute against' or the execution task (in 8.0) instead? Allowing the 2nd user to change the job while it's executing is by design, but I'd expect the 1st job to run to completion as it was set.
I should have specified this, we are on 7.5.0 version. I am not sure if execute against or execution task is specific to 8.0!
Here is the sample of our batch job.
Batch Job 1
- Deploy Job 1
- Deploy Job 2
- Deploy Job 3
User 1 sets the target to server1 and run the Batch Job 1. While Batch Job 1 is executing Deploy Job 1, User 2 change the target to server2 and starts running the job. Deploy Job 1 for user 1 completes successfully, but Deploy Job 2 and 3 completes with error since user 1 doesn't have access to server 2!
I hope this helps understanding our scenario.
Execute Against is in 7.6, the execution task is in 8.0, so neither of those will help you...
Do both roles have to access the same job - can you create copies of the job for each role? Though the same underlying problem would exist. When the batch job runs it's probably querying for the targets on each deploy job, not pulling them all at once.
Open up a support ticket on this, it's probably functioning as designed but I would not agree w/ the design in this case...
That's what I think but wanted to put it out just if case if someone has run into this. I will open a support case.
Thanks for your help