Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? (RANT)
I did a quick check on ARSystem 7.6.04 SP2 with Atrium Core, AIE, ITSM installed. There are 3,821 records in the FIELD table that have fieldID values running from 1,000,000,000 - 1,536,916,750. The forms that have these fields in the range seem to cover a wide assortment of forms, everything from the Group form to AIE, CMDB, and others ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: Where the Answers Are
Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? (RANT)
Good call! I must have not had enough coffee when ran this query the other day. I just ran it again wondering why there was such a large difference between our counts and came up with 34,916 fields over the 1,000,000,000 mark. There is still a large difference but I am not way low any more :) 7.6.04 SP1, Atrium Core, AIE, ITSM, SLM, RKM. Jason On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Remedy rem...@rowshay.com wrote: ** I did a quick check on ARSystem 7.6.04 SP2 with Atrium Core, AIE, ITSM installed. There are 3,821 records in the FIELD table that have fieldID values running from 1,000,000,000 – 1,536,916,750. ** ** The forms that have these fields in the range seem to cover a wide assortment of forms, everything from the Group form to AIE, CMDB, and others ** ** ** ** _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: Outside of Reserved Range warning? (RANT)
That is a pretty sweet idea. You could prefix field IDs like forms and workflow. On Sep 8, 2011 10:00 AM, Joe Martin Dapos;Souza jdso...@shyle.net wrote: Sometimes I wish BMC changed this field ID structure just a we bit.. Instead of having just numerical ID’s, they modified their internal meta data structure a bit that Field ID’s could accommodate characters as well.. Then you could actually have meaningful Field ID’s instead of having to come up with some sort of code to choosing your next Field ID.. Reserved ranges could still be retained doing this and may even have the flexibility to designing ‘Keyword’ kind of reserved fields. It just may open up more possibilities.. Joe From: Jason Miller Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 12:35 PM Newsgroups: public.remedy.arsystem.general To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? ** I agreed that it takes more work to keep track of your field IDs but the consistency pays off later. I brought back a numbering scheme when I returned to my current employer. We have have been using it now for 3 years and it is paying off on how easy it is to share common workflow and foundation forms. The trick is to get into the habit of keeping track of the last used field ID for the type of field you and adjusting the ID before you save a new field. Being able to sort on Field ID/Name in Dev Studio helps as well as ARUtilities provides a quick list (and is easy to copy the field number to the clipboard). There have been a few POCs where we have created rapid prototypes using the default IDs and then later when we got the go ahead for the project used archgid and a CSV file exported from ARUtilities. Here are the number ranges we use. Range Type Starting Ending # of Fields Dynamic Group Fields 60001 N/A Data Fields (Saved) 600010001 600016999 6998 Shared Data Fields (Saved) 600017001 600018999 1998 Temp Fields (Display Only) 600019001 600019699 698 Shared Temp Fields (Display Only) 600019701 60001 298 Trim/page/button/column 600020001 600026999 6998 Shared Buttons Trim/page/button/column 600027001 60002 2998 Views 60010 N/A Groups 120 129 9 We also have a fairly long list of common field such as First Name 600018048, Last Name 600018049, Serial Number 600017503, zTmpCharVar01 600019701, zTmpIntVar01 600019721, txtHeader 600027008, etc. Right now it is just a spreadsheet but I have been wanting to make it a Remedy app for a while. What would be really cool is to integrate the app with Dev Studio so it automatically picks the next ID based on the field type. :) Jason On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Susan Palmer suzanpal...@gmail.com wrote: ** David, Personally I'd stay out of the less than 6 range simply because that is BMC's range. One never knows what the future brings. And even though your custom forms may never be 'in' a BMC Application you may want to use them inconjunction with one and you don't want any gotchas from the past biting you in the ###. When I first started this implementation 9 years ago I thought it would nice to know where the 'home' location of a field (what form) was and I assigned ID's based on the field's 'home' location so that I knew the origination of the data. But whatever plan you decide on it just needs to be uniform so you can maintain your sanity. It's all just good practice and establishing a habit. Good luck, Susan On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM, David Durling durl...@uga.edu wrote: ** Thanks Mike Susan, So it sounds like the 536xx-599xx range is not reserved for any special use. Rather, it’s just that 600xx-9 is a convenient range to maintain custom IDs in that is unlikely to be auto-assigned by the system (unless someone actually added enough IDs to reach 6). This is a one-developer custom setup, and I am trying to weigh the advantage of me manually assigning IDs over the convenience of letting ARS do it. I have run into the situation where trying to map a push fields or something was tedious because I had not kept consistent use of field ids (so I couldn’t just match based on ID), so I do see that advantage. David David Durling University of Georgia From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of White, Michael W (Mike) Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 10:07 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? ** I agree - we don’t have 399,999,999 fields (closer to 22K). No problem with the number of possible Field IDs. Not even close. Mike White EMail michael.wh...@verizon.com Office 813.978.2192 From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Susan Palmer Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:53 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? ** I want to know who is going to use more fields than
Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? (RANT)
Also, having 9 numbers in a row might trigger false positives if you do a security scan on a system (like a PC containing def files) to try to detect United States social security numbers. Seems like might have happened for me once. So allowing alphabetical characters, or maybe using the 1,000,000,000 range (though it sounds from Jennifer like BMC's already started using the bottom of that a little) might avoid that. David David Durling University of Georgia From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Jason Miller Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:42 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? (RANT) ** That is a pretty sweet idea. You could prefix field IDs like forms and workflow. On Sep 8, 2011 10:00 AM, Joe Martin Dapos;Souza jdso...@shyle.netmailto:jdso...@shyle.net wrote: Sometimes I wish BMC changed this field ID structure just a we bit.. Instead of having just numerical ID's, they modified their internal meta data structure a bit that Field ID's could accommodate characters as well.. Then you could actually have meaningful Field ID's instead of having to come up with some sort of code to choosing your next Field ID.. Reserved ranges could still be retained doing this and may even have the flexibility to designing 'Keyword' kind of reserved fields. It just may open up more possibilities.. Joe From: Jason Miller Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 12:35 PM Newsgroups: public.remedy.arsystem.general To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORGmailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? ** I agreed that it takes more work to keep track of your field IDs but the consistency pays off later. I brought back a numbering scheme when I returned to my current employer. We have have been using it now for 3 years and it is paying off on how easy it is to share common workflow and foundation forms. The trick is to get into the habit of keeping track of the last used field ID for the type of field you and adjusting the ID before you save a new field. Being able to sort on Field ID/Name in Dev Studio helps as well as ARUtilities provides a quick list (and is easy to copy the field number to the clipboard). There have been a few POCs where we have created rapid prototypes using the default IDs and then later when we got the go ahead for the project used archgid and a CSV file exported from ARUtilities. Here are the number ranges we use. Range Type Starting Ending # of Fields Dynamic Group Fields 60001 N/A Data Fields (Saved) 600010001 600016999 6998 Shared Data Fields (Saved) 600017001 600018999 1998 Temp Fields (Display Only) 600019001 600019699 698 Shared Temp Fields (Display Only) 600019701 60001 298 Trim/page/button/column 600020001 600026999 6998 Shared Buttons Trim/page/button/column 600027001 60002 2998 Views 60010 N/A Groups 120 129 9 We also have a fairly long list of common field such as First Name 600018048, Last Name 600018049, Serial Number 600017503, zTmpCharVar01 600019701, zTmpIntVar01 600019721, txtHeader 600027008, etc. Right now it is just a spreadsheet but I have been wanting to make it a Remedy app for a while. What would be really cool is to integrate the app with Dev Studio so it automatically picks the next ID based on the field type. :) Jason On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Susan Palmer suzanpal...@gmail.commailto:suzanpal...@gmail.com wrote: ** David, Personally I'd stay out of the less than 6 range simply because that is BMC's range. One never knows what the future brings. And even though your custom forms may never be 'in' a BMC Application you may want to use them inconjunction with one and you don't want any gotchas from the past biting you in the ###. When I first started this implementation 9 years ago I thought it would nice to know where the 'home' location of a field (what form) was and I assigned ID's based on the field's 'home' location so that I knew the origination of the data. But whatever plan you decide on it just needs to be uniform so you can maintain your sanity. It's all just good practice and establishing a habit. Good luck, Susan On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM, David Durling durl...@uga.edumailto:durl...@uga.edu wrote: ** Thanks Mike Susan, So it sounds like the 536xx-599xx range is not reserved for any special use. Rather, it's just that 600xx-9 is a convenient range to maintain custom IDs in that is unlikely to be auto-assigned by the system (unless someone actually added enough IDs to reach 6). This is a one-developer custom setup, and I am trying to weigh the advantage of me manually assigning IDs over the convenience of letting ARS do it. I have run into the situation where trying to map a push fields or something was tedious because I had not kept consistent
Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? (RANT)
Yes BMC has definitely started using the bottom range of the 10 mark onwards from as early as ITSM 6.3 I think.. You will see those fields if you do a query for: select fieldid, fieldname from field where fieldid = 10; If you have no fields of your own that you have created in that range, you will see a list of fields that exist which are all BMC created fields.. There are quite a few of them. Don’t have a system I can query against right now or I’d send in the list on a 7.6.04. Joe From: David Durling Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 9:15 AM Newsgroups: public.remedy.arsystem.general To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? (RANT) ** Also, having 9 numbers in a row might trigger false positives if you do a security scan on a system (like a PC containing def files) to try to detect United States social security numbers. Seems like might have happened for me once. So allowing alphabetical characters, or maybe using the 1,000,000,000 range (though it sounds from Jennifer like BMC’s already started using the bottom of that a little) might avoid that. David David Durling University of Georgia From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Jason Miller Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 4:42 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? (RANT) ** That is a pretty sweet idea. You could prefix field IDs like forms and workflow. On Sep 8, 2011 10:00 AM, Joe Martin Dapos;Souza jdso...@shyle.net wrote: Sometimes I wish BMC changed this field ID structure just a we bit.. Instead of having just numerical ID’s, they modified their internal meta data structure a bit that Field ID’s could accommodate characters as well.. Then you could actually have meaningful Field ID’s instead of having to come up with some sort of code to choosing your next Field ID.. Reserved ranges could still be retained doing this and may even have the flexibility to designing ‘Keyword’ kind of reserved fields. It just may open up more possibilities.. Joe From: Jason Miller Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 12:35 PM Newsgroups: public.remedy.arsystem.general To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? ** I agreed that it takes more work to keep track of your field IDs but the consistency pays off later. I brought back a numbering scheme when I returned to my current employer. We have have been using it now for 3 years and it is paying off on how easy it is to share common workflow and foundation forms. The trick is to get into the habit of keeping track of the last used field ID for the type of field you and adjusting the ID before you save a new field. Being able to sort on Field ID/Name in Dev Studio helps as well as ARUtilities provides a quick list (and is easy to copy the field number to the clipboard). There have been a few POCs where we have created rapid prototypes using the default IDs and then later when we got the go ahead for the project used archgid and a CSV file exported from ARUtilities. Here are the number ranges we use. Range Type Starting Ending # of Fields Dynamic Group Fields 60001 N/A Data Fields (Saved) 600010001 600016999 6998 Shared Data Fields (Saved) 600017001 600018999 1998 Temp Fields (Display Only) 600019001 600019699 698 Shared Temp Fields (Display Only) 600019701 60001 298 Trim/page/button/column 600020001 600026999 6998 Shared Buttons Trim/page/button/column 600027001 60002 2998 Views 60010 N/A Groups 120 129 9 We also have a fairly long list of common field such as First Name 600018048, Last Name 600018049, Serial Number 600017503, zTmpCharVar01 600019701, zTmpIntVar01 600019721, txtHeader 600027008, etc. Right now it is just a spreadsheet but I have been wanting to make it a Remedy app for a while. What would be really cool is to integrate the app with Dev Studio so it automatically picks the next ID based on the field type. :) Jason On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Susan Palmer suzanpal...@gmail.com wrote: ** David, Personally I'd stay out of the less than 6 range simply because that is BMC's range. One never knows what the future brings. And even though your custom forms may never be 'in' a BMC Application you may want to use them inconjunction with one and you don't want any gotchas from the past biting you in the ###. When I first started this implementation 9 years ago I thought it would nice to know where the 'home' location of a field (what form) was and I assigned ID's based on the field's 'home' location so that I knew the origination of the data. But whatever plan you decide on it just needs to be uniform so you can maintain your sanity. It's all just good practice and establishing a habit. Good luck, Susan On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10
Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? (RANT)
Our 7.6.04 SP1 (minus Analytic/Dashboards/SRM) has 137 fields above 10. On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Joe Martin D'Souza jdso...@shyle.netwrote: ** Yes BMC has definitely started using the bottom range of the 10 mark onwards from as early as ITSM 6.3 I think.. You will see those fields if you do a query for: select fieldid, fieldname from field where fieldid = 10; If you have no fields of your own that you have created in that range, you will see a list of fields that exist which are all BMC created fields.. There are quite a few of them. Don’t have a system I can query against right now or I’d send in the list on a 7.6.04. Joe *From:* David Durling durl...@uga.edu *Sent:* Friday, September 09, 2011 9:15 AM *Newsgroups:* public.remedy.arsystem.general *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG *Subject:* Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? (RANT) ** Also, having 9 numbers in a row might trigger false positives if you do a security scan on a system (like a PC containing def files) to try to detect United States social security numbers. Seems like might have happened for me once. So allowing alphabetical characters, or maybe using the 1,000,000,000 range (though it sounds from Jennifer like BMC’s already started using the bottom of that a little) might avoid that. David David Durling University of Georgia *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] *On Behalf Of *Jason Miller *Sent:* Friday, September 09, 2011 4:42 AM *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG *Subject:* Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? (RANT) ** That is a pretty sweet idea. You could prefix field IDs like forms and workflow. On Sep 8, 2011 10:00 AM, Joe Martin Dapos;Souza jdso...@shyle.net wrote: Sometimes I wish BMC changed this field ID structure just a we bit.. Instead of having just numerical ID’s, they modified their internal meta data structure a bit that Field ID’s could accommodate characters as well.. Then you could actually have meaningful Field ID’s instead of having to come up with some sort of code to choosing your next Field ID.. Reserved ranges could still be retained doing this and may even have the flexibility to designing ‘Keyword’ kind of reserved fields. It just may open up more possibilities.. Joe From: Jason Miller Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 12:35 PM Newsgroups: public.remedy.arsystem.general To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? ** I agreed that it takes more work to keep track of your field IDs but the consistency pays off later. I brought back a numbering scheme when I returned to my current employer. We have have been using it now for 3 years and it is paying off on how easy it is to share common workflow and foundation forms. The trick is to get into the habit of keeping track of the last used field ID for the type of field you and adjusting the ID before you save a new field. Being able to sort on Field ID/Name in Dev Studio helps as well as ARUtilities provides a quick list (and is easy to copy the field number to the clipboard). There have been a few POCs where we have created rapid prototypes using the default IDs and then later when we got the go ahead for the project used archgid and a CSV file exported from ARUtilities. Here are the number ranges we use. Range Type Starting Ending # of Fields Dynamic Group Fields 60001 N/A Data Fields (Saved) 600010001 600016999 6998 Shared Data Fields (Saved) 600017001 600018999 1998 Temp Fields (Display Only) 600019001 600019699 698 Shared Temp Fields (Display Only) 600019701 60001 298 Trim/page/button/column 600020001 600026999 6998 Shared Buttons Trim/page/button/column 600027001 60002 2998 Views 60010 N/A Groups 120 129 9 We also have a fairly long list of common field such as First Name 600018048, Last Name 600018049, Serial Number 600017503, zTmpCharVar01 600019701, zTmpIntVar01 600019721, txtHeader 600027008, etc. Right now it is just a spreadsheet but I have been wanting to make it a Remedy app for a while. What would be really cool is to integrate the app with Dev Studio so it automatically picks the next ID based on the field type. :) Jason On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Susan Palmer suzanpal...@gmail.com wrote: ** David, Personally I'd stay out of the less than 6 range simply because that is BMC's range. One never knows what the future brings. And even though your custom forms may never be 'in' a BMC Application you may want to use them inconjunction with one and you don't want any gotchas from the past biting you in the ###. When I first started this implementation 9 years ago I thought it would nice to know where the 'home' location of a field (what form) was and I assigned ID's based
Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? (RANT)
Sometimes I wish BMC changed this field ID structure just a we bit.. Instead of having just numerical ID’s, they modified their internal meta data structure a bit that Field ID’s could accommodate characters as well.. Then you could actually have meaningful Field ID’s instead of having to come up with some sort of code to choosing your next Field ID.. Reserved ranges could still be retained doing this and may even have the flexibility to designing ‘Keyword’ kind of reserved fields. It just may open up more possibilities.. Joe From: Jason Miller Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 12:35 PM Newsgroups: public.remedy.arsystem.general To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? ** I agreed that it takes more work to keep track of your field IDs but the consistency pays off later. I brought back a numbering scheme when I returned to my current employer. We have have been using it now for 3 years and it is paying off on how easy it is to share common workflow and foundation forms. The trick is to get into the habit of keeping track of the last used field ID for the type of field you and adjusting the ID before you save a new field. Being able to sort on Field ID/Name in Dev Studio helps as well as ARUtilities provides a quick list (and is easy to copy the field number to the clipboard). There have been a few POCs where we have created rapid prototypes using the default IDs and then later when we got the go ahead for the project used archgid and a CSV file exported from ARUtilities. Here are the number ranges we use. Range Type Starting Ending # of Fields Dynamic Group Fields 60001 N/A Data Fields (Saved) 600010001 600016999 6998 Shared Data Fields (Saved) 600017001 600018999 1998 Temp Fields (Display Only) 600019001 600019699 698 Shared Temp Fields (Display Only) 600019701 60001 298 Trim/page/button/column 600020001 600026999 6998 Shared Buttons Trim/page/button/column 600027001 60002 2998 Views 60010 N/A Groups 120 129 9 We also have a fairly long list of common field such as First Name 600018048, Last Name 600018049, Serial Number 600017503, zTmpCharVar01 600019701, zTmpIntVar01 600019721, txtHeader 600027008, etc. Right now it is just a spreadsheet but I have been wanting to make it a Remedy app for a while. What would be really cool is to integrate the app with Dev Studio so it automatically picks the next ID based on the field type. :) Jason On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Susan Palmer suzanpal...@gmail.com wrote: ** David, Personally I'd stay out of the less than 6 range simply because that is BMC's range. One never knows what the future brings. And even though your custom forms may never be 'in' a BMC Application you may want to use them inconjunction with one and you don't want any gotchas from the past biting you in the ###. When I first started this implementation 9 years ago I thought it would nice to know where the 'home' location of a field (what form) was and I assigned ID's based on the field's 'home' location so that I knew the origination of the data. But whatever plan you decide on it just needs to be uniform so you can maintain your sanity. It's all just good practice and establishing a habit. Good luck, Susan On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:27 AM, David Durling durl...@uga.edu wrote: ** Thanks Mike Susan, So it sounds like the 536xx-599xx range is not reserved for any special use. Rather, it’s just that 600xx-9 is a convenient range to maintain custom IDs in that is unlikely to be auto-assigned by the system (unless someone actually added enough IDs to reach 6). This is a one-developer custom setup, and I am trying to weigh the advantage of me manually assigning IDs over the convenience of letting ARS do it. I have run into the situation where trying to map a push fields or something was tedious because I had not kept consistent use of field ids (so I couldn’t just match based on ID), so I do see that advantage. David David Durling University of Georgia From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of White, Michael W (Mike) Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 10:07 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? ** I agree - we don’t have 399,999,999 fields (closer to 22K). No problem with the number of possible Field IDs. Not even close. Mike White EMail michael.wh...@verizon.com Office 813.978.2192 From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Susan Palmer Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 9:53 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Outside of Reserved Range warning? ** I want to know
