Forum Discussion
Entra Connect Sync duplicated UPN
Hi I had Entra Connect running for a long time without issues. Out of the blue Connect Sync started to report Duplicate Attribute on 3 users User Principal Name. The 3 users, Connect Sync bel...
Found the error. The error message detail window was a bit misleading, i think.
Error message: Object With Conflicting Attribute.
It complained UPN was identical with "Object With Conflicting Attribute" and listed a user object with a identical UPN. So far, so good.
But it also listed a user object under "Existing Object" with a complete different UPN and GUID. I thought, it was this user object there was a conflict with, but indeed it was not.
The conflicting user object was under deleted users. As soon as i permanant deleted the deleted user object Azure Connect sync synced with success.
I don´t know why Connect Sync/Azure reports back a "Existing object" which has nothing to do with the sync errors.
Error message: Object With Conflicting Attribute.
It complained UPN was identical with "Object With Conflicting Attribute" and listed a user object with a identical UPN. So far, so good.
But it also listed a user object under "Existing Object" with a complete different UPN and GUID. I thought, it was this user object there was a conflict with, but indeed it was not.
The conflicting user object was under deleted users. As soon as i permanant deleted the deleted user object Azure Connect sync synced with success.
I don´t know why Connect Sync/Azure reports back a "Existing object" which has nothing to do with the sync errors.
Deleted users are still included in the reporting since they can readily be restored during that soft-deletion phase.
Once they transition from soft-deleted to hard-deleted (a 30 day window), they literally no longer exist and any blocking conditions will automatically be resolved.
As you've discovered, if you manually hurry the transition from soft-delete to hard-delete along, you can resolve the conflict ahead of the default wait period.
Cheers,
Lain
- That makes sense, but why the reporting listed a existing object which has nothing to do with the issue is very misleading.