Re: Group Assignment in ITSM 7.0.3
It is the sort order that controls which rule that's going to get used. If two assignment rules apply, the one with the higher sort order gets applied by default. That way we can always control what rule gets applied. That's how we control our exceptions, etc. and always land the ticket where we want (if they've been categorized correctly). Anne Ramey *** E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties only by an authorized State Official. -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Thad K Esser Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 4:19 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Group Assignment in ITSM 7.0.3 That puts my mind at ease a little, thanks. Its always good to learn something new. Thad Esser Remedy Developer "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours."-- Richard Bach |> | From: | |> >--| |Charles Baldi | >--| |> | To:| |> >--| |arslist@ARSLIST.ORG | >--| |> | Date: | |> >--| |05/07/2009 09:54 AM | >--| |> | Subject: | |> >----------| |Re: Group Assignment in ITSM 7.0.3 | >--| |> | Sent by: | |> >--| |"Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)" | >--| ** In my experience this works fine and can simplify your assignment rules. The only trouble might arise is if you have exceptions to your general rule. You may still get the general rule firing instead of your more specific rule. Others have commented on this behavior too. Regards, Chuck Baldi On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Thad K Esser wrote: Hello, I had a question about group assignment in ITSM 7.0.3 (patch 9). One of my co-workers noticed that you can create a routing order (say for operation categorization) where you specify a Tier 2, and then null out Tier 1. So for example: Tier 1 = Null (normal values would be like add, change, or remove) Tier 2 = Network Tier 3 = Firewall Rule They've tested this and say its getting them the results they want (their goal is to save time by not having to configure extra assignment rules). I've always generalized the way group assignment works as going from the most specific rule, to the least specific, and I guess I've always assumed you had to start at Tier 1 and narrow things down from there. Since what they are doing challenges my notion of the way it works (and I'm pressed for time, otherwise I'd go digging through the code), I wanted get some more experienced thoughts on it. Will doing the above break anything? Have any unintended consequences? Thanks in advance,
Re: Group Assignment in ITSM 7.0.3
That puts my mind at ease a little, thanks. Its always good to learn something new. Thad Esser Remedy Developer "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours."-- Richard Bach |> | From: | |> >--| |Charles Baldi | >--| |> | To:| |> >--| |arslist@ARSLIST.ORG | >--| |> | Date: | |> >--| |05/07/2009 09:54 AM | >--| |> | Subject: | |> >--------------| |Re: Group Assignment in ITSM 7.0.3 | >--| |> | Sent by: | |> >--| |"Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)" | >--| ** In my experience this works fine and can simplify your assignment rules. The only trouble might arise is if you have exceptions to your general rule. You may still get the general rule firing instead of your more specific rule. Others have commented on this behavior too. Regards, Chuck Baldi On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Thad K Esser wrote: Hello, I had a question about group assignment in ITSM 7.0.3 (patch 9). One of my co-workers noticed that you can create a routing order (say for operation categorization) where you specify a Tier 2, and then null out Tier 1. So for example: Tier 1 = Null (normal values would be like add, change, or remove) Tier 2 = Network Tier 3 = Firewall Rule They've tested this and say its getting them the results they want (their goal is to save time by not having to configure extra assignment rules). I've always generalized the way group assignment works as going from the most specific rule, to the least specific, and I guess I've always assumed you had to start at Tier 1 and narrow things down from there. Since what they are doing challenges my notion of the way it works (and I'm pressed for time, otherwise I'd go digging through the code), I wanted get some more experienced thoughts on it. Will doing the above break anything? Have any unintended consequences? Thanks in advance, Thad Esser Remedy Developer "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours."-- Richard Bach *IMPORTANT NOTICE: This communication, including any attachment, contains information that may be confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this email, including any attachment, is intended to be a legally binding signature. * ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor:rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: "
Re: Group Assignment in ITSM 7.0.3
In my experience this works fine and can simplify your assignment rules. The only trouble might arise is if you have exceptions to your general rule. You may still get the general rule firing instead of your more specific rule. Others have commented on this behavior too. Regards, Chuck Baldi On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Thad K Esser wrote: > Hello, > > I had a question about group assignment in ITSM 7.0.3 (patch 9). One of my > co-workers noticed that you can create a routing order (say for operation > categorization) where you specify a Tier 2, and then null out Tier 1. So > for example: > Tier 1 = Null (normal values would be like add, change, or remove) > Tier 2 = Network > Tier 3 = Firewall Rule > > They've tested this and say its getting them the results they want (their > goal is to save time by not having to configure extra assignment rules). > > I've always generalized the way group assignment works as going from the > most specific rule, to the least specific, and I guess I've always assumed > you had to start at Tier 1 and narrow things down from there. Since what > they are doing challenges my notion of the way it works (and I'm pressed > for time, otherwise I'd go digging through the code), I wanted get some > more experienced thoughts on it. > > Will doing the above break anything? Have any unintended consequences? > > Thanks in advance, > Thad Esser > Remedy Developer > "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours."-- Richard > Bach > > > *IMPORTANT NOTICE: This communication, including any attachment, contains > information that may be confidential or privileged, and is intended solely > for the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the > intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified > that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is strictly > prohibited. Nothing in this email, including any attachment, is intended to > be a legally binding signature. > * > > > ___ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > Platinum > Sponsor:rmisoluti...@verizon.netARSlist: > "Where the Answers Are" > ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor:rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
Group Assignment in ITSM 7.0.3
Hello, I had a question about group assignment in ITSM 7.0.3 (patch 9). One of my co-workers noticed that you can create a routing order (say for operation categorization) where you specify a Tier 2, and then null out Tier 1. So for example: Tier 1 = Null (normal values would be like add, change, or remove) Tier 2 = Network Tier 3 = Firewall Rule They've tested this and say its getting them the results they want (their goal is to save time by not having to configure extra assignment rules). I've always generalized the way group assignment works as going from the most specific rule, to the least specific, and I guess I've always assumed you had to start at Tier 1 and narrow things down from there. Since what they are doing challenges my notion of the way it works (and I'm pressed for time, otherwise I'd go digging through the code), I wanted get some more experienced thoughts on it. Will doing the above break anything? Have any unintended consequences? Thanks in advance, Thad Esser Remedy Developer "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours."-- Richard Bach *IMPORTANT NOTICE: This communication, including any attachment, contains information that may be confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this email, including any attachment, is intended to be a legally binding signature. * ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor:rmisoluti...@verizon.net ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
