-- sounds like an enhancement request. If it already existed previously, and now it needs to be reinvented... the conclusion that im coming too would be something like::
New cheaper engineers in a 3rd world country needs to reinvent the wheel previously created with American ingenuity. On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:00 PM, strauss <stra...@unt.edu> wrote: > ** > > Yes, that is the case. I actually store that entire string in a custom > field in the Incident on submit – a good time to get the entry id - to use > later with Kinetic Calendar or anything else that needs a direct URL to the > Incident. It’s much easier than trying to construct it later.**** > > ** ** > > Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. > Call Tracking Administration Manager > University of North Texas Computing & IT Center > http://itsm.unt.edu/ **** > > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] *On Behalf Of *Guillaume Rheault > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 02, 2012 12:15 PM > *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > *Subject:* Re: URL DIRECT LINKS IN 7.6.04 CHANGE FOR ITSM FORMS DUE TO > SHR:LANDINGCONSOLE INTERFERENCE**** > > ** ** > > ** **** > > The only direct access URL that still works, without specifying the > SHR:LandingConsole is the one where the entry id (field id 1) is specified, > such as > > > http://remedy/arsys/servlet/ViewFormServlet?server=remedyapp&form=CHG%3AInfrastructure%20Change&eid=CRQ000000100001 > > it really SUCKS that the other direct URL ones don't work, such as the > ones where you can specify a query. > > This new FEATURE broke some existing integrations and made us redesign > other ones... just great. In the ITSM world, having to deal with entry id > makes things kludgy for integrations, since it is the incident ID or change > ID that are visible to the user. But at least that direct ccess URL with > the entry ID works. I hope BMC does not break that one in ITSM 7.7. The > direct access URL mechanism as described in the mid-tier guide page 76-84 > has been implemented for years now until the @#$%^& landing console > > It seems to me backwards compatibility should mean more than just API > version compatibility: it should also consider URLs, specially when more > and more integrations use these features to display whatever > request/ticket/etc. > > This kind of problems could be avoided if there was more communication and > coordination between the different groups that develop the modules, whether > ITSM modules or core ARS components. > Who knows where in the world this SHR:LandingConsole was cooked up, but > the dudes there definitely had no idea about the consequences of their > design for existing customers. > > Now if you want to talk about BMC simplicity, an excellent topic is > mid-tier active link logging 8 - 0 / > As far as I'm concerned, that whole active link logging area needs to be > totally re-designed so it's half useful. > > Guillaume**** > ------------------------------ > > -- Patrick Zandi _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
