The 2nd issue was actually a problem that we figured out (hard way) but I 
guess I've repressed the memory.  So I'd forgotten about that one.

Anyway sounds like you're on the path. 

With regards to the users that have too much/too little data, is the 
problem consistently reproducible?  If so I'd flip on a log, examine the 
filter doing the set fields.


Ben Cantatore
Remedy Administrator
Avon
(914) 935-2946



"Pierson, Shawn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Sent by: "Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)" 
<arslist@ARSLIST.ORG>
07/10/2007 02:43 PM
Please respond to
arslist@ARSLIST.ORG


To
arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
cc

Subject
Re: Approval Engine Issues (Two issues are resolved)






** 
I just got off the phone with BMC support and got a couple of things 
addressed, although it seems that all of the things listed as bugs below 
are either actual defects or an enhancement request.
 
 
The second issue listed, "The AP-Central:SetRequirePassword active link 
gets triggered even
though the Approvals are not set to use it, causing probably half of my
users to be unable to approve changes." is an actual defect that I was 
told will be patched in the future.  The workaround is to run two 
escalations in the def file that truncate the Process Instance ID field 
from "Change Level IA - Implementation" to "Change Level IA - 
Implementati".  It seems that on AP:Detail this field is not long enough 
to handle the full text, so it truncates it and then an error occurs as 
the system can't look up the approval.
 
The other item that is semi-resolved is "We are using multi-tenancy, so we 
are able to add an approver from
another company that does not have access rights to see the change, and
that user refuses to approve any changes that he can't see.  I think the
multi-tenancy permissions should be changed so that people can see
Change Requests that are not for their company, if they are an approver.". 
 This is mostly as designed, although the approval engine needs to be 
tightened down to not allow people to be approvals for things that they 
have no access rights to.  This is something my company runs into as a 
result of the weird sort of multi-tenancy we require to be both SOX and 
FERC compliant, so it may not happen for everyone.
 
Also, I have an incident open that has BMC support stumped for now -- The 
multi-tenancy functionality does not work correctly for the Assignment 
tabs on Incidents and Changes.  We have users that can have permission to 
one or two companies, and the menus for things like the Assigned Company, 
Owner Company, Change Manager Company, etc. and all the related fields do 
not show the correct data.  Some show too little, some show too much.
 
Shawn Pierson
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Cantatore
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:46 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: Approval Engine Issues

** 
I implemented ITSM initially without patches so based on what the approval 
console was like back then, we made a decision to approve from within the 
ticket.  So I can only comment on approvals done in directly in the change 
tickets.   

Problem 1 - I never encountered the approve functionality error, however 
I'd suggest checking the people profile and see what kind of access they 
do have, compare that person's profile with a user that is not having an 
issue. 
Problem 2 - I think this is people profile related 
Problem 3 - If you approve directly should be a non issue - or you can 
modify approval central like we did so it does show that info 
Problem 4 - I have the same issue, no one has complained about this, but 
now that I look at it, I think I'll modify the interface here at some 
future date. 
Problem 5 - All my approvers happen to be IT, so I've not had the problem 
(yet) but I'm guessing as long as the user has license and permissions for 
Infrastructure Change user it should work. 
Problem 6 - Using multi-tenancy as well and haven't seen that issue, but 
again most of my approver are in IT and have licenses/permissions to 
change form 
Problem 7 - Our notifications point to approval central and we did modify 
it a bit, but it seems to work fine. 

Ben Cantatore
Remedy Administrator
Avon
(914) 935-2946 


"Pierson, Shawn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Sent by: "Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)" 
<arslist@ARSLIST.ORG> 
07/10/2007 10:38 AM 

Please respond to
arslist@ARSLIST.ORG



To
arslist@ARSLIST.ORG 
cc

Subject
Approval Engine Issues








Here is a list of the issues I've encountered with the Approval Engine.

- When users try to approve a change from the Change Request they
sometimes get "The Approve functionality is not available under your
current access permission of the change request. (ARERR 44845)"  BMC
told me that we should not have users approve changes via the Change
Request itself and instead redirect them to the Approval Central as a
workaround.

- The AP-Central:SetRequirePassword active link gets triggered even
though the Approvals are not set to use it, causing probably half of my
users to be unable to approve changes.

- The Approval ID field on Approval Central does not correlate to the
Change Request Number.

- When you go to add an ad-hoc approver to a Change Request, there is no
error checking or validation if you do not hit Enter after typing in a
name.

- We do a lot of user approvals, and any user should be able to be added
as an approver, not just Support Staff.

- We are using multi-tenancy, so we are able to add an approver from
another company that does not have access rights to see the change, and
that user refuses to approve any changes that he can't see.  I think the
multi-tenancy permissions should be changed so that people can see
Change Requests that are not for their company, if they are an approver.

- We have an issue where people get an email to do an approval, but when
they go into Approval Central, they can't see that pending approval.

There have been others, that are due to things we have either done wrong
or our users understood incorrectly, but these items are the more
"valid" ones.

Thanks,

Shawn Pierson

Private and confidential as detailed <a
href="http://www.sug.com/disclaimers/default.htm#Mail";>here</a>.  If you 
cannot access hyperlink, please e-mail sender.

_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where 
the Answers Are"

__20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in 
it___
Private and confidential as detailed here. If you cannot access hyperlink, 
please e-mail sender. 
__20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in 
it___ 

_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the 
Answers Are"

Reply via email to