Oh, it's worse than that. I had to add some functionality to the approval a couple years and versions ago, and found that the functionality - the workflow that actually does the work, not just the interface triggers - is different for the Process Flow Bar, the Approval Console, and the Approvals tab on the CR. Three sets of workflow accomplishing basically the same thing, and after years of all of those systems playing together, there are still separate sets of workflow in the current version.
It seems of lesser importance than getting bug fixes (and we are currently encountering a doozy) addressed and adequate QA done to ensure that things work at all, but it would be nice to have some tightening up of the design and architecture of the application suite. Rick On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Lyle Taylor <tayl...@ldschurch.org> wrote: > ** > > I griped about this a few years back, too. The answer I got, besides > “functions as designed” is that the approval engine is essentially an > independent subsystem. While the ITSM suite uses it, it is not, per se, > part of the ITSM suite. As such, it doesn’t know about how ITSM stores and > works with people but uses the User form instead. That leaves it with only > being able to really use the least common denominator for people, which is > username.**** > > ** ** > > Not sayin’ I agree…**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] *On Behalf Of *Tommy Morris > *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:25 AM > *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > *Subject:* Remedy Inconsistancy**** > > ** ** > > ** **** > > I just had to explain to my corporate comptroller and CIO that just because > you can add an Approver using that approver’s First and Last Name from > within a Change ticket, that doesn’t mean that you can reassign an approval > the same way. I also went ahead and informed the two of them that they > cannot create and Alternate Approver record using the alternate’s First and > Last Name.**** > > ** ** > > Why is it that one Approval Central will only recognize login ID? I > understand that the Add Approver function on Infrastructure Change uses > workflow to find the login ID and pass that to the Approval Engine to > correctly build out the new approval. Did the developers of Approval Central > not realize that they could have used the same workflow so end-users are not > confused by when to use ID vs Name? The least that they could have done is > on the reassignment dialog form is have the field label of “Approver ID” > instead of “Approver”. The same goes for the Alternate Approver form, the > label there is “Alternate*”. There is no workflow to validate that the data > being put in these fields is what the system actually needs. Funny thing > about reporting this to support is that the answer is “Working as Designed”. > Really?!?! Well I knew that it was working as designed, it’s not a bug, it’s > just poor design! Its fine to have Remedy developers/ admins have to figure > out how the system works but to push that headache to a UI where true > end-users are impacted.**** > > _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_**** > > > > 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.**** > > _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
