Also, I have heard BMC say - that it is a "supported way" to push into Incident… (You can think of it loosely as an API)
As in - BMC owns the responsibility from version to version - that it will work. So - if you are somebody like Kinetic - we should feel "somewhat safe" to push to incident_create and it will work from version to version. *** Side note: you may be pushing to one form (incident_create) - but it then creates records in a variety of different forms. So - yes you could do it - but you might have to do 5 pushes vs the one. -John On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Lyle Taylor <tayl...@ldschurch.org> wrote: > My understanding was that the primary purpose of the "interface" forms and > web services was to provide a more stable integration point for custom > integrations. It follows the normal interface vs. implementation paradigm. > You publish an interface which establishes a contract between your system > and others, and change that as little as possible. Then, you can make all > the changes you want behind the scenes so long as it doesn't break the > contract you have provided (the interface) with external systems. The idea > then is that BMC can change the implementation details of that module > without having to worry too much about breaking customer integrations if > they use the provided interface. > > In general, my recommendation is to use defined interfaces when possible. > That said, I've had numerous problems with that particular interface in > ITSM 7.0. In particular there are issues around the Status Reason field. > Supposedly they have been fixed somewhere along the line in 7.5 or 7.6, > but I can't confirm that. There have been at least two issues with it. > The first is that it's required to have a value for certain Status values, > but was not included in the web service. The second issue is that > something is broken in the Join form or something that causes it not to > save the value correctly. It doesn't get completely ignored, but > effectively gets ignored. It's aggravating - you'll see the value getting > set at one point in the workflow logs, and then you see it unset again > later. I remember going through the filter logs and a filter would checked > twice to see if it would run. In one case, the Run If would pass, and it > would run, the next time it would fail, and so it would not run. This was > even though the value of the Status and Status Reason fields had not > changed from one test to the next. I finally gave up on it. > > So, in our case, we use it, and have exposed the Status Reason field, but > still have some issues around it. Other than that, it seems to work fine, > though. > > As I said, in general, when an interface is provided I think it is best to > use the interface unless you have really good reasons not to. If anything, > if there is doubt, I would be looking for reasons NOT to use the interface > rather than reasons TO use the interface. I'm not sure that sounds right - > I wouldn't actively look for reasons not to use it - the point is, good > justification should be in place if you are not going to use the interface. > Justification is not required for using the defined interface. Not sure > that sounded much better. Oh well... :-) > > Lyle > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Longwing, LJ CTR MDA/IC > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:24 AM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: IncidentInterface_Create > > So what you are saying is that I may be assuming competence where none > exists? :) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of ravi rai > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:19 AM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: IncidentInterface_Create > > ** > LJ > i dont think it does all validation we have written lot of filter and > filter guides to do validation which we needed > > > > > Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:12:56 -0600 > > From: lj.longwing....@mda.mil > > Subject: Re: IncidentInterface_Create > > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > > > > Hey Ravi, > > Yes, I'm familiar with the function of the form, but what I'm not aware > of is WHY it's needed. Basic information that I have picked up over the > years tells me that because of the fact that HD is VERY active link based, > there are various business rules that are written and enforced when > creating things through the GUI that aren't enforced when creating them > through a push to the form itself. This apparently lead to the creation of > the interface form to enforce the same business rules at the Filter level, > and push it to the incident form when everything is copasetic....the > question I'm raising is really 'what does it do'...what sort of validations > does it perform that I won't get if I push directly to the incident form > itself? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of ravi rai > > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:01 AM > > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > > Subject: Re: IncidentInterface_Create > > > > ** > > LJ , > > Greetings .... > > IncidentInterface_Create act as intermidiate form for landing request to > create incident SRM also use this form. > > webservice "HPD_IncidentInterface_Create_WS" > > It works fine in 7604 not sure about 7.57 or previous version > > > > Ravi > > > > > > > Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:24:52 -0400 > > > From: jdso...@shyle.net > > > Subject: Re: IncidentInterface_Create > > > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > > > > > > For whatever it may be worth, I recall problems with this form and the > > > WS associated with it in its OTB state - I do not recall which version > > > but it wasn't any of the most recent ones.. One of the required fields > > > was missing.. I had to create that field both on the form as well as > > > modify the WS to include that.. I do not recall much beyond that.. > > > > > > Maybe its been fixed and your problem is something else - but I just > > > thought I'd throw this there.. > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Longwing, LJ CTR MDA/IC > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 11:18 AM Newsgroups: > > > public.remedy.arsystem.general > > > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > > > Subject: IncidentInterface_Create > > > > > > I'm getting thrown into the deep end of ITSM and trying not to splash > > > too much trying to stay afloat and would love some assistance from the > > > more experienced swimmers in these waters. > > > > > > I'm in a situation where I'm creating incidents through a non 'gui' > method. > > > From discussions on the list I know that you don't want to do it > > > directly into the incident form directly, and that I 'should' do it > > > through the IncidentInterface_Create form...but in this situation I > > > can't. I'm looking for either guidance to documentation that discusses > > > the interface form, and what it does for me, or either straight from > > > the horses mouth information about the things I need to look out for > > > when loading these directly in the table. One thing that may be > > > important...the records that I'm creating don't need to 'flow' > > > anywhere....they are being created strictly from a historical > perspective and will be created already in the 'Closed' status. > > > > > > Remedy 7.5 Patch 7 > > > ITSM 7.5 > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > _________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > > > attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are" > > > > _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > > attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are" > > _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.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. > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are" > -- *John Sundberg* Kinetic Data, Inc. "Your Business. Your Process." *WWRUG10 Best Customer Service/Support Award* *WWRUG09 Innovator of the Year Award* * * 651-556-0930 I john.sundb...@kineticdata.com www.kineticdata.com I community.kineticdata.com _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
