DataGrail access request error Salesforce custom objects excluded from expo

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in DataGrail access request by acting on the exact problem first: add the Salesforce custom objects that hold personal data to the DataGrail export scope and field mapping, re-export the request including those objects, and check the package manifest lists them with row counts above zero where records exist. Do not rerun the whole job or request unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one request, system or batch first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.

Salesforce custom objects excluded from export package

Use this when

• The operation in DataGrail access request fails with this exact message or symptom: Salesforce custom objects excluded from export package.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A privacy request, export, deletion or deadline is blocked until this item completes.

Not for this skill when

• The message is an outage notice from the platform. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with a legal interpretation or a policy choice. That is a privacy team decision, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure with the smallest scope that still shows it in DataGrail access request, and copy the full message plus the request, system or record involved into the run notes. Verify: the problem is reproduced on demand with a named scope, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: add the Salesforce custom objects that hold personal data to the DataGrail export scope and field mapping, re-export the request including those objects, and check the package manifest lists them with row counts above zero where records exist. Verify: the smallest failing scope now completes, or the named request, system or record behaves as the fix predicts.
3. Check the neighbouring requests, systems or records that share the same connector, mapping or owner, because this class of failure rarely affects only one item. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original operation in DataGrail access request on the previously failing scope, watching for the same message rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original message does not appear.
5. Compare the result counts or status against the source in DataGrail access request so a silent partial success is caught before the request is closed. Verify: counts match the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the request so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the problem, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Why it happens

Standard exports cover standard objects by default, and custom objects are only included when someone maps them, so years of custom data silently stay out of the package.

Variant phrasings

Salesforce custom objects excluded from export package

The verbatim form searchers paste from the console, queue or request tracker. Treat it identically: same fix, same single scope proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix - DataGrail access request error Salesforce custom objects excluded from export package

The how to phrasing for the same failure in DataGrail access request. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

DataGrail access request troubleshooting for this failure

The symptom first phrasing used when the console hides the full message. Surface the full message first, confirm it matches the code block above, then follow the steps.

Edge cases

• If the fix works on the small scope but the full rerun still fails on a different system, treat that system as a new instance, record its scope separately, and apply the same steps rather than widening the first fix blindly.
• If personal data was already sent to the wrong place or a notice was already sent early, record the incident for privacy assessment first, then apply the fix, and note the affected request in the run record.
• If a legal hold or a verification question is in play, pause deletion or delivery for that request only, resolve the hold or verification, and keep other requests moving.

Compatibility: DataGrail access request at current versions, plus the admin console or API the query names; no extra tooling beyond the source system access needed to verify counts.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_-LQv5yy0Kf-MkVEf45jFUg

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_-LQv5yy0Kf-MkVEf45jFUg

Thread query: DataGrail access request error Salesforce custom objects excluded from export package

TL;DR: Fix this in DataGrail access request by acting on the exact problem first: add the Salesforce custom objects that hold personal data to the DataGrail export scope and field mapping, re-export the request including those objects, and check the package manifest lists them with row counts above zero where records exist. Do not rerun the whole job or request unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one request, system or batch first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in Salesforce API by acting on the exact problem first: batch the object searches using bulk queries, save the result per object, wait for the limit reset stated by Salesforce, and resume with the first unsearched object, reconciling the objects searched against the data map list. Do not rerun the whole job or request unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one request, system or batch first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.

rate limit hit searching custom objects for requester personal data

Use this when

• The operation in Salesforce API fails with this exact message or symptom: rate limit hit searching custom objects for requester personal data.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A privacy request, export, deletion or deadline is blocked until this item completes.

Not for this skill when

• The message is an outage notice from the platform. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with a legal interpretation or a policy choice. That is a privacy team decision, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure with the smallest scope that still shows it in Salesforce API, and copy the full message plus the request, system or record involved into the run notes. Verify: the problem is reproduced on demand with a named scope, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: batch the object searches using bulk queries, save the result per object, wait for the limit reset stated by Salesforce, and resume with the first unsearched object, reconciling the objects searched against the data map list. Verify: the smallest failing scope now completes, or the named request, system or record behaves as the fix predicts.
3. Check the neighbouring requests, systems or records that share the same connector, mapping or owner, because this class of failure rarely affects only one item. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original operation in Salesforce API on the previously failing scope, watching for the same message rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original message does not appear.
5. Compare the result counts or status against the source in Salesforce API so a silent partial success is caught before the request is closed. Verify: counts match the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the request so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the problem, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Why it happens

Searching every custom object with separate calls spends quota in proportion to the schema size, so the limit arrives before the long tail of objects is ever checked.

Variant phrasings

rate limit hit searching custom objects for requester personal data

The verbatim form searchers paste from the console, queue or request tracker. Treat it identically: same fix, same single scope proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix - Salesforce API rate limit hit searching custom objects for requester personal data

The how to phrasing for the same failure in Salesforce API. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

Salesforce API troubleshooting for this failure

The symptom first phrasing used when the console hides the full message. Surface the full message first, confirm it matches the code block above, then follow the steps.

Edge cases

• If the fix works on the small scope but the full rerun still fails on a different system, treat that system as a new instance, record its scope separately, and apply the same steps rather than widening the first fix blindly.
• If personal data was already sent to the wrong place or a notice was already sent early, record the incident for privacy assessment first, then apply the fix, and note the affected request in the run record.
• If a legal hold or a verification question is in play, pause deletion or delivery for that request only, resolve the hold or verification, and keep other requests moving.

Compatibility: Salesforce API at current versions, plus the admin console or API the query names; no extra tooling beyond the source system access needed to verify counts.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_esJ31ch95BcRkkDcJ8SINg

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_esJ31ch95BcRkkDcJ8SINg

Thread query: Salesforce API rate limit hit searching custom objects for requester personal data

TL;DR: Fix this in Salesforce API by acting on the exact problem first: batch the object searches using bulk queries, save the result per object, wait for the limit reset stated by Salesforce, and resume with the first unsearched object, reconciling the objects searched against the data map list. Do not rerun the whole job or request unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one request, system or batch first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in DSAR redaction before delivery by doing this first: run the export through redaction for identifiers belonging to anyone other than the requester, review the redacted package on a sample of pages and records, and only then release it, logging what classes were redacted. Do not rerun the whole job unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one item, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.

third party personal data exposed in export

Use this when

• The operation fails with this exact problem: third party personal data exposed in export.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• An audit, review, or request is blocked until this item completes.

Not for this skill when

• The message is a platform outage notice or a general sign-in failure. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with its output. That is a quality review, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure with the smallest scope that still shows it in DSAR redaction before delivery, and copy the full message plus the item, account, or request involved into the run notes. Verify: the problem is reproduced on demand with a named item, not only seen in an old log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: run the export through redaction for identifiers belonging to anyone other than the requester, review the redacted package on a sample of pages and records, and only then release it, logging what classes were redacted. Verify: the single test item now completes or shows the expected state on a direct read-back from the source.
3. Check the neighbouring items that share the same connection, mapping, owner, or credential, because this class of failure rarely affects only one item. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Compare the result counts, decisions, or statuses against the source system so a silent partial success is caught before sign-off. Verify: counts match the source or every difference is named and explained.
5. Rerun the original operation on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original problem does not appear.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input, and the verification result on the item so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the problem, the fix applied, and the evidence of success.

Why it happens

Exports collect conversations and documents that mention other people, and without a redaction pass their details ship to the requester, creating a new privacy incident inside a privacy process.

Variant phrasings

how to fix DSAR redaction error third party personal data exposed in export fails

The verbatim form searchers paste from the console or ticket. Treat it identically: same fix, same single item proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix this failure in practice

The how-to phrasing for the same failure. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

Troubleshooting the symptom-first form

The phrasing used when the console hides the full message. Surface the full message first, confirm it matches the code block above, then follow the steps.

Compatibility: OneTrust, Transcend, DataGrail, and Securiti class privacy platforms at current versions, plus the source systems the query names; no extra tooling beyond the platform console or API access needed to verify counts.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_D-kPyzvlm3tpy8-vvxg2LQ

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_D-kPyzvlm3tpy8-vvxg2LQ

Thread query: how to fix DSAR redaction error third party personal data exposed in export fails

TL;DR: Fix this in DSAR redaction before delivery by doing this first: run the export through redaction for identifiers belonging to anyone other than the requester, review the redacted package on a sample of pages and records, and only then release it, logging what classes were redacted. Do not rerun the whole job unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one item, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.