Re: Performance question CTM:People timing
Thanks all for the responses. We figured out our slowness. Turns out Oracle statistics had not been updated for 6+ months. Now with 140,000 -- it is near instantaneous on Oracle. -John On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Andrew C Goodall ago...@jcpenney.comwrote: Where are you counting from? - query on CTM_People involves multiple queries not just one, so are you just counting time from the main query to the next or the total time to process all queries for that operation? Ours 329ms (from main to last query in operation) - 357,000+ total records - SQL 2008 remote cluster. Regards, Andrew Goodall Software Engineer 2 | Development Services | jcpenney . www.jcp.com -Original Message- 2011/8/20 John Sundberg john.sundb...@kineticdata.com: ** How long does it take your DB system to resolve a query for an exact match on CTM:People where the query is 'Remedy Login ID' = some user id Also -- how many records are in your CTM:People -- and what DB are you using? Our sample system is 800ms - with 40,000 records... , Oracle 11g2 (Please get the timings from SQL log) -John -- John David Sundberg 235 East 6th Street, Suite 400B St. Paul, MN 55101 (651) 556-0930-work (651) 247-6766-cell (651) 695-8577-fax john.sundb...@kineticdata.com _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 The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that your access is unauthorized, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are -- John David Sundberg 235 East 6th Street, Suite 400B St. Paul, MN 55101 (651) 556-0930-work (651) 247-6766-cell (651) 695-8577-fax john.sundb...@kineticdata.com ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Can't Find the Data Management Install Path
Found it and got it to work. Thanks Brett and everyone else who responded! Sam ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: 7.6.04 shutdown tomcat
On a similar note, I found that 3 java plugin servers run with the ITSM and
CMDB installation:
/prod/sys/remedy/apps/AtriumCore/remedyunit/cmdb/plugins/shared/pluginsvr_config.xml
AIS.FILTERAPI, BMC.ARDBC.ATRIUM.API, RMDY.ITSM.RLE
/prod/sys/remedy/apps/AtriumCore/remedyunit/cmdb/plugins/ne/pluginsvr_config.xml
BMC.FILTERAPI.NORM.ENGINE
/prod/sys/remedy/ARSystem/pluginsvr/pluginsvr_config.xml
ARSYS.ARF.WEBSERVICE, ARSYS.ARF.REGISTRY
One plugin server can do the job of all 3 of these if configured properly.
Each one of the processes eats up at a minimum 256mb and max 512mb of
memory, by default.
Axton
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:13 PM, patrick zandi remedy...@gmail.com wrote:
** N I C E !!! and extra instance of tomcat just for SLM wonderful...
brilliant ridiculous..
how much java heap did you through at that..
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:07 PM, strauss stra...@unt.edu wrote:
**
Yup. That’s just ONE of the reasons that I gave up and stuck the SLM
Collector on its own tomcat instance on some bizarre port of its own. If
you don’t, upgrading either mid-tier or SLM will trash the other.
** **
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 *patrick zandi
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:04 PM
*To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
*Subject:* Re: 7.6.04 shutdown tomcat
** **
** That stupid SLM collector would not shutdown..
and I am finding weird stuff with this too..
So if I shutdown ARS / and TOMCAT there is an extra JAVA instance left
up again.. Errr...
Also SLM collector continues to run.. so you try and use the /etc/arsystem
monitor.conf /slmpath/execute stop and it does not work.
so you do the kill -9 which works..
BUT when starting arsystem start .. it does not startup..
...
wow.. so this stuff is not linked to startup and shutdown together.. it is
all individually started and stopped..
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Grooms, Frederick W
frederick.w.gro...@xo.com wrote:
Since you are on a Unix/Linux did tomcat get added to the armonitor.cfg
under /etc/arsystem/... ?
Fred
-Original Message-
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of patrick zandi
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 4:13 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: 7.6.04 shutdown tomcat
** I'm sure this is totally obvious: Installed 7.6.04.01 with default
tomcat:: atrium / SLM / SRM / ITSM ...
in tomcat 6 directory /bin ./shutdown.sh -- no problem says it
shutsdown..
do a {ps -ef|grep -i java} have it still running..
try an startup tomcat it says port 8080 and 443 still in use
kill -9 all process ID's -- They respawn.. and for no reason..
./shutdown.sh again -- it looks successful..
it is a perpetual loop Something has the tomcat running.. with no logs..
on port 443...
no way to shutdown... I have shutdown ARS / and SLM and tomcat again.. but
ports 443:8080 still running with links back to tomcat..
INSANE
I am not going to reboot this box just to shutdown tomcat!
I feel like chevy chase in european vacation: look ma big ben,
parliament..
--
Patrick Zandi
___
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
--
Patrick Zandi
_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_
_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_
--
Patrick Zandi
_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
Re: 7.6.04 shutdown tomcat
Look at the process tree to see what forked the process. If you are on
Solaris you can use ptree. On Linux you can use ps (ps -ejH).
Axton
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:12 PM, patrick zandi remedy...@gmail.com wrote:
** I'm sure this is totally obvious: Installed 7.6.04.01 with default
tomcat:: atrium / SLM / SRM / ITSM ...
in tomcat 6 directory /bin ./shutdown.sh -- no problem says it
shutsdown..
do a {ps -ef|grep -i java} have it still running..
try an startup tomcat it says port 8080 and 443 still in use
kill -9 all process ID's -- They respawn.. and for no reason..
./shutdown.sh again -- it looks successful..
it is a perpetual loop Something has the tomcat running.. with no logs..
on port 443...
no way to shutdown... I have shutdown ARS / and SLM and tomcat again.. but
ports 443:8080 still running with links back to tomcat..
INSANE
I am not going to reboot this box just to shutdown tomcat!
I feel like chevy chase in european vacation: look ma big ben, parliament..
--
Patrick Zandi
_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
Web service method invoking
Hi, I'm having problem with consuming a web service from a filter. This is a weird situation: one of many methods from a service is giving an error: javax.jbi.messaging.MessagingException: HTTPBC-E00701: Failed to locate the operation in the requested endpoint http://j2ee.netbeans.org/wsdl/ItsmEndpointBpel/wsITSM2Oceane,wsITSM2OceaneService,wsITSM2OceanePort,Consumerthat matches the message signature The others methods work fine. Additionally this method can be succesfully consumed from other web service clients (SoapUI). I did a test saving wsdl to a file and referencing that file instead of an url. This once worked, but when I went back to the url the problem has returned. Switching back again to a wsdl or xml file doesn't help. My question is if there is a place where ARS placing or cashing wsdl definitions which can be flushed? Any other help would be appreciated. Here is the captured soap message. Is this message generated correctly? Note ns1 and ns0 tags.Shouldn't be the same type? soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/; xmlns:xsd=http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema; xmlns:xsi= http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance;soapenv:Body ns1:Inform xmlns:ns0=http://xml.netbeans.org/schema/schemaOceaneITSM.xsd; xmlns:xsd=http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema; xmlns:xsi= http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance; xmlns:ns1= http://j2ee.netbeans.org/wsdl/ItsmEndpointBpel/wsITSM2Oceane; ns0:system_managerticketidsomedata/ns0:system_managerticketid ns0:timestamp2011-08-25T15:02:20+02:00/ns0:timestamp ns0:ticket_natureidsomedata/ns0:ticket_natureid ns0:ticket_typeidsomedata/ns0:ticket_typeid ns0:ticket_startdate2011-08-25T15:20:49+02:00/ns0:ticket_startdate ns0:ticket_descriptionsomedata/ns0:ticket_description ns0:ticket_expectedrestorationdate2011-08-25T21:51:21+02:00/ns0:ticket_expectedrestorationdate ns0:ticket_initialrestorationdate2011-08-25T21:51:21+02:00/ns0:ticket_initialrestorationdate ns0:service_typeidsomedata/ns0:service_typeid ns0:service_valuesomedata/ns0:service_value ns0:system_agentgroupsomedata/ns0:system_agentgroup /ns1:Inform/soapenv:Body/soapenv:Envelope ARS - 7.6.03 thanks, Marek ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Web service method invoking
The WSDL info is stored in the filter itself. As for the ns0 and ns1. Those are because the WSDL defines 2 different namespaces when referencing the elements. The method/operation is defined in one namespace/schema while the elements/attributes are defined in a different namespace/schema. xmlns:ns0=http://xml.netbeans.org/schema/schemaOceaneITSM.xsd; xmlns:ns1=http://j2ee.netbeans.org/wsdl/ItsmEndpointBpel/wsITSM2Oceane; Since it works from SoapUI compare the 2 and see what the difference is. Fred -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Marek B. Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:19 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Web service method invoking ** Hi, I'm having problem with consuming a web service from a filter. This is a weird situation: one of many methods from a service is giving an error: javax.jbi.messaging.MessagingException: HTTPBC-E00701: Failed to locate the operation in the requested endpoint http://j2ee.netbeans.org/wsdl/ItsmEndpointBpel/wsITSM2Oceane,wsITSM2OceaneService,wsITSM2OceanePort,Consumer that matches the message signature The others methods work fine. Additionally this method can be succesfully consumed from other web service clients (SoapUI). I did a test saving wsdl to a file and referencing that file instead of an url. This once worked, but when I went back to the url the problem has returned. Switching back again to a wsdl or xml file doesn't help. My question is if there is a place where ARS placing or cashing wsdl definitions which can be flushed? Any other help would be appreciated. Here is the captured soap message. Is this message generated correctly? Note ns1 and ns0 tags. Shouldn't be the same type? soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/; xmlns:xsd=http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema; xmlns:xsi=http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance;soapenv:Body ns1:Inform xmlns:ns0=http://xml.netbeans.org/schema/schemaOceaneITSM.xsd; xmlns:xsd=http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema; xmlns:xsi=http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance; xmlns:ns1=http://j2ee.netbeans.org/wsdl/ItsmEndpointBpel/wsITSM2Oceane; ns0:system_managerticketidsomedata/ns0:system_managerticketid ns0:timestamp2011-08-25T15:02:20+02:00/ns0:timestamp ns0:ticket_natureidsomedata/ns0:ticket_natureid ns0:ticket_typeidsomedata/ns0:ticket_typeid ns0:ticket_startdate2011-08-25T15:20:49+02:00/ns0:ticket_startdate ns0:ticket_descriptionsomedata/ns0:ticket_description ns0:ticket_expectedrestorationdate2011-08-25T21:51:21+02:00/ns0:ticket_expectedrestorationdate ns0:ticket_initialrestorationdate2011-08-25T21:51:21+02:00/ns0:ticket_initialrestorationdate ns0:service_typeidsomedata/ns0:service_typeid ns0:service_valuesomedata/ns0:service_value ns0:system_agentgroupsomedata/ns0:system_agentgroup /ns1:Inform/soapenv:Body/soapenv:Envelope ARS - 7.6.03 thanks, Marek ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
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. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Remedy Inconsistancy
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.comhttp://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. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Remedy Inconsistancy
Also login ID is unique and First Name Name may not be unique. -Original Message- From: Lyle Taylor tayl...@ldschurch.org To: arslist arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Sent: Thu, Aug 25, 2011 11:33 am Subject: Re: Remedy Inconsistancy ** 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_ _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
Re: Remedy Inconsistency
This doesn't make sense since Full Name is on the User form. Sure, it's not split up by each part of the name like it is on CTM:People, but it would be pretty easy to do searches with LIKE that would return the names that you are looking for. I've customized some of the forms for the Approval Engine in the past, but I try to avoid it after BMC patches wiped out all customizations time and time again. I don't know how the overlay principle may apply to non-ITSM forms released by BMC, because I know that 7.0 ITSM patches wouldn't delete my fields, but ARS patches including the Approval Engine would wipe out any custom stuff that I added in. I just assume that the ARS patches will continue to delete display only forms and recreate them from scratch rather than doing a more gentle update like the ITSM patches do. Thanks, Shawn Pierson Remedy Developer | Southern Union From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Lyle Taylor Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:34 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Remedy Inconsistancy ** 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.comhttp://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_ Private and confidential as detailed here: http://www.sug.com/disclaimers/default.htm#Mail . If you cannot access the link, please e-mail sender. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Remedy Inconsistancy
That is pretty much what I told my bosses. It is not easy to explain the workings of Remedy to those who do not get into the nuts and bolts per se. the only real option is the write a custom filter to validate the full name to the user ID and pass that behind the scenes but I really don't want to customize AC as there are way too many moving parts in that hooptie already. From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Lyle Taylor Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:34 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Remedy Inconsistancy ** 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
Re: Remedy Inconsistancy
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
Crystal Reports/ Remedy Developer Need
** Evolver is an International Information and Communication Technology solutions provider committed to delivering value throughout the IT lifecycle. Our clients value our capabilities and entrust us with critical roles on mission critical programs. Evolvers core competencies are solution architecture, systems engineering and integration, systems implementation and operations, and program management. Crystal Reports/ Remedy Developer Description of Duties: • Using reporting requirements including Service Level Agreements calculations, extract data from Remedy 7.6 and, using Crystal Reports, develop, test and gain acceptance for reports meeting the requirements. • Developer will work with systems engineers, operations personnel and customers to understand reporting requirements and available data to produce reports. • Developer will develop a design as the basis for the development for review and approval. Design will be the basis for development. Developed reports will be tested in a controlled environment using representative data. • Developer will work with stakeholders to refine reports and gain acceptance. Skills Required/Desired: • Remedy 7.6, Crystal Reports. 1-2 years of Remedy and Crystal Reports experience • 3-5 years of software experience Education/Training/Certifications Required/Desired: • Bachelor’s Degree, Remedy and Crystal Reports Training or commensurate experience Unique skills/Additional Requirements: (Clearances, etc.) • Capable of receiving a Public Trust Clearance (includes Background Investigation) Evolver, Inc. is an Equal Opportunity Employer (EOE). Qualified applicants are considered for employment without regard to age, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, disability or veteran status. Evolver offers a comprehensive benefits plan including (but not limited to): medical, dental, vision, 401(k), life, AD and short term and long term disability insurance. Please send qualified resumes to jt...@evolverinc.com _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_
7.6.04 - Dashboards Licensing
IF someone is looking at and drilling down into a Dashboard on the Incident Console, do they consume a Dashboards license? Is it option 1 or 2? 1) They use the license they have for the ITSM app. 2) They use the license they have for the ITSM app. and a Dashboard license. Thank You! Claire ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Remedy Inconsistency
Which module is your doozy of a bug in? ...just curious. 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 Rick Cook Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:47 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Remedy Inconsistancy ** 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.orgmailto: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.ORGmailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Tommy Morris Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:25 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORGmailto: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.comhttp://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.comhttp://www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _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
Re: Remedy Inconsistency
CMDB 7.6.04 form corruption issues when in a server group, but only on a Linux platform - Windows seems to do just fine. The short-term workaround: don't customize the CMDB in a server group on Linux. Support is working hard on a solution. Rick On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:24 AM, strauss stra...@unt.edu wrote: ** Which module is your doozy of a bug in? …just curious. ** ** 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 *Rick Cook *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:47 AM *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG *Subject:* Re: Remedy Inconsistancy ** ** ** 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_ _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _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
Re: 7.6.04 shutdown tomcat
Only 256-512 on that tomcat (5.5.33, 32-bit) on a 64x machine with 24 gb of
RAM. Being able to maintain the installed components is more important than
conserving resources. I've had some web servers with 4 or 5 tomcat instances
running - some x64, some x86, and every version you can think of, since so many
of the apps can and/or will install their own (BOXI, Dashboards, Analytics,
mid-tier, Kinetic). You do have to separate out all of the ports they are
going to use.
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 patrick zandi
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:13 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: 7.6.04 shutdown tomcat
** N I C E !!! and extra instance of tomcat just for SLM wonderful...
brilliant ridiculous..
how much java heap did you through at that..
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 6:07 PM, strauss
stra...@unt.edumailto:stra...@unt.edu wrote:
**
Yup. That's just ONE of the reasons that I gave up and stuck the SLM Collector
on its own tomcat instance on some bizarre port of its own. If you don't,
upgrading either mid-tier or SLM will trash the other.
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.ORGmailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of patrick
zandi
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:04 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORGmailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: 7.6.04 shutdown tomcat
** That stupid SLM collector would not shutdown..
and I am finding weird stuff with this too..
So if I shutdown ARS / and TOMCAT there is an extra JAVA instance left up
again.. Errr...
Also SLM collector continues to run.. so you try and use the /etc/arsystem
monitor.conf /slmpath/execute stop and it does not work.
so you do the kill -9 which works..
BUT when starting arsystem start .. it does not startup..
...
wow.. so this stuff is not linked to startup and shutdown together.. it is all
individually started and stopped..
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Grooms, Frederick W
frederick.w.gro...@xo.commailto:frederick.w.gro...@xo.com wrote:
Since you are on a Unix/Linux did tomcat get added to the armonitor.cfg under
/etc/arsystem/... ?
Fred
-Original Message-
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORGmailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of patrick
zandi
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 4:13 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORGmailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: 7.6.04 shutdown tomcat
** I'm sure this is totally obvious: Installed 7.6.04.01 with default tomcat::
atrium / SLM / SRM / ITSM ...
in tomcat 6 directory /bin ./shutdown.sh -- no problem says it shutsdown..
do a {ps -ef|grep -i java} have it still running..
try an startup tomcat it says port 8080 and 443 still in use
kill -9 all process ID's -- They respawn.. and for no reason..
./shutdown.sh again -- it looks successful..
it is a perpetual loop Something has the tomcat running.. with no logs.. on
port 443...
no way to shutdown... I have shutdown ARS / and SLM and tomcat again.. but
ports 443:8080 still running with links back to tomcat..
INSANE
I am not going to reboot this box just to shutdown tomcat!
I feel like chevy chase in european vacation: look ma big ben, parliament..
--
Patrick Zandi
___
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at
www.arslist.orghttp://www.arslist.org
attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.comhttp://www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers
Are
--
Patrick Zandi
_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.comhttp://www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers
Are_
_attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.comhttp://www.wwrug.com ARSlist: Where the Answers
Are_
--
Patrick Zandi
_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
Re: Remedy Inconsistency
True; last time I checked, I had about 2,000 records out of 266,000 where Full Name (First Middle Last) was NOT unique. The disconnect got worse once the ITSM suite stopped using login ID (version 7.0 through 7.6.04) and TRIED to use Full Name and a number of fields that are only partially populated (email, phone) to identify people, so the designs of ITSM and Approval actually diverged. 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 Roger Justice Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:37 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Remedy Inconsistancy ** Also login ID is unique and First Name Name may not be unique. -Original Message- From: Lyle Taylor tayl...@ldschurch.org To: arslist arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Sent: Thu, Aug 25, 2011 11:33 am Subject: Re: Remedy Inconsistancy ** 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.ORGmailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG?] On Behalf Of Tommy Morris Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:25 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORGmailto: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.comhttp://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.comhttp://www.wwrug.com/ ARSlist: Where the Answers Are_ _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
Re: 7.6.04 - Dashboards Licensing
Hi Claire: If you're talking about Flashboards (Graphics) inside Incident Console, users only need a Fixed/Floating License for Incident Management Module (i.e Incident User, Incident Master, Incident Config). So option 1 is your answer. It's same behavior for Problem Console, Change Console, Asset Console and so on. HTH, Alejandro __ De: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] En nombre de Sanford, Claire [claire.sanf...@memorialhermann.org] Enviado el: jueves, 25 de agosto de 2011 12:20 Para: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Asunto: 7.6.04 - Dashboards Licensing IF someone is looking at and drilling down into a Dashboard on the Incident Console, do they consume a Dashboards license? Is it option 1 or 2? 1) They use the license they have for the ITSM app. 2) They use the license they have for the ITSM app. and a Dashboard license. Thank You! Claire ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org 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
Row Level Security
Does anyone have a good write up on how to implement row level security. You used to be able to implement without having to create records for customers in user, group or role form (using implicit Assignee Group). According to the doc for 7.x you need to put either user name, group or role in field 112. I don't want to enter our customers in user or group table, instead I want to use company or contract as the implicit assignee group. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Row Level Security
You can use the company - when a company is created it creates a group for it. Search on the long name of the group for the company name to get the group ID. This is what will be appended to field 112 if want company row level security. Use Public if you want to open it to everyone. Regards, Andrew Goodall Software Engineer 2 | Development Services | jcpenney . www.jcp.com -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Deborah Darrah Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 12:25 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Row Level Security Does anyone have a good write up on how to implement row level security. You used to be able to implement without having to create records for customers in user, group or role form (using implicit Assignee Group). According to the doc for 7.x you need to put either user name, group or role in field 112. I don't want to enter our customers in user or group table, instead I want to use company or contract as the implicit assignee group. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that your access is unauthorized, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Print Results in 18 copies
What about deleting the entry from the preference server? I didn't see any settings there for printing, but since another login works fine from her machine, that may be the only difference. Also try deleting her local cache of forms and workflow. James ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Print Results in 18 copies
Actually, understanding this problem a bit more. 18 copies occur if the report is greater than 1 page in length for any user using the user tool. However, if the report is only one page in length, you get only one copy. But these are good suggestions, but it would appear to be related with the Remedy User Tool/Crystal interface using Windows 7 as Tommy had indicated. Any ideas for workarounds other than to back off to XP or use only the web? I cannot duplicate the problem for other versions of Windows. Thanks, Scott From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of jham36 Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:54 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Print Results in 18 copies ** What about deleting the entry from the preference server? I didn't see any settings there for printing, but since another login works fine from her machine, that may be the only difference. Also try deleting her local cache of forms and workflow. James _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
Oracle defect in Java 7 when using Full Text Search
Oracle released Java 7http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/index.html on July 28th, 2011. Unfortunately the new optimizations in Java 7 can cause problems with the BMC Remedy Full Text Search indexing engine and cause possible corruption to the FTS index. This affects BMC Remedy Full Text Search version 7.6.03 and later. This issue affects many applications, not just BMC Remedy Full Text Search, and Oracle has been made aware of the issue by a number of organizations. In response to the community, Oracle has proposed to include a fix into Java 7 Update 2. BMC therefore strongly recommends not using BMC Remedy Full Text Search 7.6.03 or later with Java 7 releases before Update 2. If you must use Java 7, a workaround is to disable loop optimizations using the -XX:-UseLoopPredicate JVM option to avoid the risk of index corruptions. Note: Also Java 6 users are also affected if they use one of those JVM options, which are not enabled by default: -XX:+OptimizeStringConcat or -XX:+AggressiveOpts. Oracle is tracking these issues under bugs 7070134http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7070134, 7044738http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7044738, 7068051http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7068051. -David J. Easter Manager of Product Management, Remedy Platform BMC Software, Inc. The opinions, statements, and/or suggested courses of action expressed in this E-mail do not necessarily reflect those of BMC Software, Inc. My voluntary participation in this forum is not intended to convey a role as a spokesperson, liaison or public relations representative for BMC Software, Inc. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
change management notifications - where requestor same as implementer
Has any one added any custom workflow to prevent Requestor and Implementer notification occurring if the ID is the same for the Requestor and Implementer? A lot of our changes are IT people inputing change requests so the IT person is often the requestor and implementer, and they are getting tired of the duplicate email notifications. Anybody know if you can add logic to the NTE notification workflow to prevent sending Requestor notification if the Implementer ID is the same as the Requestor? Or which workflow to look at? Regards, Andrew Goodall Software Engineer 2 | Development Services | jcpenney . www.jcp.com http://www.jcp.com/ /prefont face=monospacesize=-3brThe information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and brmay contain confidential and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intendedbrrecipient, you are hereby notified that your access is unauthorized, and any review, dissemination,brdistribution or copying of this message including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are notbrthe intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.brpre ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Remedy Inconsistency
Would you believe that somewhere in the ITSM 7.6.04.01 application code for Incident, there is STILL something retrieving location information from CTM:People on Name rather than PPL ID or Login ID? We had fits with this when we worked on our ITSM 7.0.02 application in 2007-8 and reported it then, and modified the code to stop doing it. THE BUG(S) IS/ARE STILL THERE in 7.6.04.01!! This turned up this morning when our business school kept getting an invalid location error on creating an incident for a faculty member using the process flow bar, and examination of the error in the midtier log (and a lot more digging) showed that it kept pulling in the Site ID from his son’s record – same First and Last different Middle Name. Both of their People records were perfect – all locations were correct and valid – but the workflow was pulling the wrong one at least 50% of the time, which caused us problems with reproducing the error – sometimes it got it correct! Without Middle Name, we have about 6,000 records that are not unique. Any programmer trying to qualify something on Name is a certified idiot! BMC Defects have 9 lives; they are the “gift” that keeps on giving. 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 strauss Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:17 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Remedy Inconsistency ** True; last time I checked, I had about 2,000 records out of 266,000 where Full Name (First Middle Last) was NOT unique. The disconnect got worse once the ITSM suite stopped using login ID (version 7.0 through 7.6.04) and TRIED to use Full Name and a number of fields that are only partially populated (email, phone) to identify people, so the designs of ITSM and Approval actually diverged. 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 Roger Justice Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:37 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Remedy Inconsistancy ** Also login ID is unique and First Name Name may not be unique. -Original Message- From: Lyle Taylor tayl...@ldschurch.org To: arslist arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Sent: Thu, Aug 25, 2011 11:33 am Subject: Re: Remedy Inconsistancy ** 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.ORGmailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG?] On Behalf Of Tommy Morris Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:25 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORGmailto: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.comhttp://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
Re: change management notifications - where requestor same as implementer
Andrew, my understanding is that to change one of the existing notifications, the easiest way is to create a new one that has the same name as an existing one. Workflow will look at your custom one and ignore the OOB one. Rick On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Andrew C Goodall ago...@jcpenney.comwrote: ** Has any one added any custom workflow to prevent Requestor and Implementer notification occurring if the ID is the same for the Requestor and Implementer? ** ** A lot of our changes are IT people inputing change requests so the IT person is often the requestor and implementer, and they are getting tired of the duplicate email notifications. ** ** Anybody know if you can add logic to the NTE notification workflow to prevent sending Requestor notification if the Implementer ID is the same as the Requestor? Or which workflow to look at? ** ** Regards, *Andrew Goodall* Software Engineer 2 | Development Services | jcpenney . www.jcp.com http://www.jcp.com/ ** ** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that your access is unauthorized, and any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message including any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. _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
Re: change management notifications - where requestor same as implementer
Thanks Kevin - I was able to find the workflow and customize - disabled
OOTB and copied and altered to add AND ('Requestor ID' != 'ASCHG')
CHG:CRQ:StatusScheduled_850_RqsterNonSupportGrp-SetTag
HG:CRQ:StatusScheduled_850_Rqster-SetTag
Regards,
Andrew Goodall
Software Engineer 2 | Development Services | jcpenney . www.jcp.com
http://www.jcp.com/
From: Kevin Shaffer [mailto:kevin_l_shaf...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:29 PM
To: Andrew C Goodall
Subject: RE: change management notifications - where requestor same as
implementer
I haven't doesn't this but this might work.
The Notification Engine Guide outlines all the filters that are called.
For example, customer notification when a change is submitted is called
from the filter CHG:CRQ:NTCustConfirm_803_SetTag. If you dont want this
notification sent out when the Change Assignee is the same then modify
the critieria on this filter to be something like AND Requestor ID !=
ASLOGID
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:14:36 -0400
From: ago...@jcpenney.com
Subject: change management notifications - where requestor same as
implementer
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
**
Has any one added any custom workflow to prevent Requestor and
Implementer notification occurring if the ID is the same for the
Requestor and Implementer?
A lot of our changes are IT people inputing change requests so the IT
person is often the requestor and implementer, and they are getting
tired of the duplicate email notifications.
Anybody know if you can add logic to the NTE notification workflow to
prevent sending Requestor notification if the Implementer ID is the same
as the Requestor? Or which workflow to look at?
Regards,
Andrew Goodall
Software Engineer 2 | Development Services | jcpenney . www.jcp.com
http://www.jcp.com/
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and
may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If the reader of
this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that your access is unauthorized, and
any review, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message including any attachments is
strictly prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete the
material from any computer.
_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
