I use cmdbdriver to generate new classes so that the class guids are what I 
want them to be.

 

  _____  

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Ben Chernys
Sent: 28 January 2009 21:46
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: FW: ITSM Issue with Sandbox Enablement

 

That is correct.  The Class Manager console was used.  cmdb2asset is no longer 
used.  The functionality is done with other processes now.  But yes, all done 
with OOTB facilities.  The IDs were auto-assigned.  (bad!) and (worse) so where 
the class guids!  My OOTB VM "seems" to work as well.  BUT, I have not made any 
new classes there and done a real experiment.

 

Cheers

Ben

 

  _____  

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Lyle Taylor
Sent: January 28, 2009 10:32 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: ITSM Issue with Sandbox Enablement

Ben,

 

You said something that I would like clarification on:

 

any attributes (of our hand-constructed classes using default Admin defined 
field ids)

 

(italics added)  Just to be certain I’m understanding things correctly, did you 
create these classes using the CMDB console using the functionality there for 
creating classes and adding attributes to them, or did you do any of this work 
in the Admin tool?  While I haven’t added any new classes, I have added a fair 
number of attributes to existing classes (although we used IDs specified from a 
specific range of IDs that we were using, rather than letting the system 
auto-assign IDs), and we never had a problem with the system not bringing these 
attributes into the sandbox, which is something that I think should be someone 
analogous to what you’re trying to do in the end.  While I’m not an expert on 
what happens when you use a sample schema, I would expect that the fact that 
“by ID” is selected, it should bring across all fields with matching IDs 
regardless of whether or not they’re in the sample schema – which it seem would 
have to be the case or the majority of the OOB classes would have this same 
issue.

 

Well, I guess there’s no useful information in the paragraph above.  I guess I 
really just want to confirm that the classes were all created using the CMDB 
console exclusively, and that any AST forms used to work with those classes 
were created using the CMDB2Asset utility so that the IDs of the fields on the 
asset forms and the CMDB forms all match up, regardless of whether they’re OOB 
or custom.

 

Lyle

 

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Ben Chernys
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:57 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: ITSM Issue with Sandbox Enablement

 

**  

Thanks Guys,

 

I agree with you.  I noticed the part that doesn't make sense but believe it or 
not I have a reasonable reason for using it.  As for auditing, we've had our 
share of issues with it but are (over) using it.

 

I disabled the delete activity in the Sandbox reconciliation job so that when a 
CI in Production (Gold?) is touched by a person, I can have our standard 
reconciliation job basically use the equal Sandbox CI at a higher precedence 
and then more or less cancel the normal discovered CI in the recon job.  When 
that normal discovered CI has "caught up" to the human modified CI, in a set of 
configured fields I might add, then the Sandbox CI is deleted and the CI is no 
longer human modified and participates in reconciliation updates as normal.  I 
also cannot add an attribute indicating the human modification state to 
BaseElement.

 

The Sandbox indeed makes no sense whatsoever as implemented with the OOTB 
workflow.  The Updated CI is pushed (supposedly) to the Sandbox, and then 
immediately reconciled to production AND deleted from Sandbox.  Also note the 
comments about the NULL Option in the OOTB Job.  This may be there to cover the 
issue I encountered below.

 

We now have a ticket with BMC but alas, I am going to have to do something to 
make it work sooner than I expect a response or a fix.  Perhaps the Overlay 
feature works better?

 

Cheers

Ben

 

  _____  

From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 
[mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Guillaume Rheault
Sent: January 28, 2009 9:15 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: ITSM Issue with Sandbox Enablement

** 

I totally agree with Lyle.

 

It just does not make sense to have a sandbox that will be immediately 
reconciled to production dataset. Besides restricting the updates via 
permissions or field properties, I would add that enabling auditing on the 
fields that can be updated is a good complement, from a control/audit 
perspective. So with access control and auditing, you really don't need a 
sandbox, and you are going to gain a lot in terms of reducing complexity, 
maintenance, etc.

 

-Guillaume

 

__Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ 



NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and 
may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, 
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended 
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of 
the original message.

__Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ 

__Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ 

__Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ 

__Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___

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

Reply via email to