Re: Overlay on AST:BaseElement
Hi, A few years ago I overlaid BMC.CORE:xxx forms adding an empty view with a table field and a few display only fields. Unfortunately it broke during a later upgrade. So I guess display only fields are not the same as trim fields... Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se (ARSList MVP 2011) Ask the Remedy Licensing Experts (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10/11/12/13): * RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing. * RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs. Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se. Everyone, It is indeed OK to overlay various forms for various reasons. Let's go through the rules. BMC.CORE: forms These are the CMDB forms themselves. You can overlay the VUI (the UI layout and interaction) of this form and you can overlay the DISPLAY of the fields. DO NOT overlay the field definitions themselves. You can overlay the form only in the mode of no changes to the form -- a dummy overlay. You could do this if you wanted to ADD new custom fields that are trim fields. So, you are overlaying only the form display/layout. NOTHING else should be overlayed or changed. Change other things by changing the definitions through the Class Manager. AST: forms These are joins between the CMDB and the AST:Atribute forms. These forms are used by the Asset Management system. You can overlay these forms and fields and change things as is needed for your environment. You should be careful about removing fields on these forms as it would limit functionality within Asset Management. So, you should have full overlay rights on these forms. WARNING -- the syncUI utility may delete the joins and recreate them. That of course would delete any overlays. So, you want to be sure to either not run that utility and update any newly added CMDB field on the form yourself or export all overlays/custom definitions, run syncUI, and reimport your overlay/custom definitions. Workflow on either I would be careful about overlaying any workflow on either of these forms. You can if it is essential, but any workflow is likely core functionality of the corresponding system. Adding new custom workflow is just fine. Just be sure that it is desired capability as you would in any case of adding workflow. Doug -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Kemes, Lisa A DLA CTR INFORMATION OPERATIONS Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:48 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Overlay on AST:BaseElement We have overlaid AST:BaseElement and nothing has blown up yet. :) -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Jason Miller Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 7:45 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Overlay on AST:BaseElement ** I haven't specifically done this but since it is an Asset Management form and not a CMDB form you should be fine. That is what they tell me anyways :) Jason On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Hicox and...@hicox.com wrote: ** Hi everyone. Does anyone out there know of good reasons NOT to overlay AST:BaseElement? The short story is that I need to see 'LastScanDate' from BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement, along side my asset data. AST:BaseElement seems like the natural place to do this, since it joins AST:Attributes and BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement. All I should need to do is create an overlay and bring in 'LastScanDate' from BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement ... super easy. And in fact, I have done this on my dev box, and it SEEMS ok, but then I got to thinking about it ... In the past, I made the horrendous mistake of overlaying BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement, and THAT truely hosed my system on upgrade (even though I deleted the overlay prior to upgrading). I'd hate to stumble into that sort of minefield again. A quick search on communities didn't seem to turn up a whole lot, so I thought I'd ask here. Anyone have experience overlaying AST:BaseElement? Did it work out for you? Cause nightmares? Thanks eveyone -Andy _ARSlist: Where the Answers Are and have been for 20 years_ _ARSlist: Where the Answers Are and have been for 20 years_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20
Re: Overlay on AST:BaseElement
Everyone, It is indeed OK to overlay various forms for various reasons. Let's go through the rules. BMC.CORE: forms These are the CMDB forms themselves. You can overlay the VUI (the UI layout and interaction) of this form and you can overlay the DISPLAY of the fields. DO NOT overlay the field definitions themselves. You can overlay the form only in the mode of no changes to the form -- a dummy overlay. You could do this if you wanted to ADD new custom fields that are trim fields. So, you are overlaying only the form display/layout. NOTHING else should be overlayed or changed. Change other things by changing the definitions through the Class Manager. AST: forms These are joins between the CMDB and the AST:Atribute forms. These forms are used by the Asset Management system. You can overlay these forms and fields and change things as is needed for your environment. You should be careful about removing fields on these forms as it would limit functionality within Asset Management. So, you should have full overlay rights on these forms. WARNING -- the syncUI utility may delete the joins and recreate them. That of course would delete any overlays. So, you want to be sure to either not run that utility and update any newly added CMDB field on the form yourself or export all overlays/custom definitions, run syncUI, and reimport your overlay/custom definitions. Workflow on either I would be careful about overlaying any workflow on either of these forms. You can if it is essential, but any workflow is likely core functionality of the corresponding system. Adding new custom workflow is just fine. Just be sure that it is desired capability as you would in any case of adding workflow. Doug -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Kemes, Lisa A DLA CTR INFORMATION OPERATIONS Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:48 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Overlay on AST:BaseElement We have overlaid AST:BaseElement and nothing has blown up yet. :) -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Jason Miller Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 7:45 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Overlay on AST:BaseElement ** I haven't specifically done this but since it is an Asset Management form and not a CMDB form you should be fine. That is what they tell me anyways :) Jason On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Hicox and...@hicox.com wrote: ** Hi everyone. Does anyone out there know of good reasons NOT to overlay AST:BaseElement? The short story is that I need to see 'LastScanDate' from BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement, along side my asset data. AST:BaseElement seems like the natural place to do this, since it joins AST:Attributes and BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement. All I should need to do is create an overlay and bring in 'LastScanDate' from BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement ... super easy. And in fact, I have done this on my dev box, and it SEEMS ok, but then I got to thinking about it ... In the past, I made the horrendous mistake of overlaying BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement, and THAT truely hosed my system on upgrade (even though I deleted the overlay prior to upgrading). I'd hate to stumble into that sort of minefield again. A quick search on communities didn't seem to turn up a whole lot, so I thought I'd ask here. Anyone have experience overlaying AST:BaseElement? Did it work out for you? Cause nightmares? Thanks eveyone -Andy _ARSlist: Where the Answers Are and have been for 20 years_ _ARSlist: Where the Answers Are and have been for 20 years_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years
Re: Overlay on AST:BaseElement
We have overlaid AST:BaseElement and nothing has blown up yet. :) -Original Message- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Jason Miller Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 7:45 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Overlay on AST:BaseElement ** I haven't specifically done this but since it is an Asset Management form and not a CMDB form you should be fine. That is what they tell me anyways :) Jason On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Hicox and...@hicox.com wrote: ** Hi everyone. Does anyone out there know of good reasons NOT to overlay AST:BaseElement? The short story is that I need to see 'LastScanDate' from BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement, along side my asset data. AST:BaseElement seems like the natural place to do this, since it joins AST:Attributes and BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement. All I should need to do is create an overlay and bring in 'LastScanDate' from BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement ... super easy. And in fact, I have done this on my dev box, and it SEEMS ok, but then I got to thinking about it ... In the past, I made the horrendous mistake of overlaying BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement, and THAT truely hosed my system on upgrade (even though I deleted the overlay prior to upgrading). I'd hate to stumble into that sort of minefield again. A quick search on communities didn't seem to turn up a whole lot, so I thought I'd ask here. Anyone have experience overlaying AST:BaseElement? Did it work out for you? Cause nightmares? Thanks eveyone -Andy _ARSlist: Where the Answers Are and have been for 20 years_ _ARSlist: Where the Answers Are and have been for 20 years_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years
Re: Overlay on AST:BaseElement
I haven't specifically done this but since it is an Asset Management form and not a CMDB form you should be fine. That is what they tell me anyways :) Jason On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Hicox and...@hicox.com wrote: ** Hi everyone. Does anyone out there know of good reasons NOT to overlay AST:BaseElement? The short story is that I need to see 'LastScanDate' from BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement, along side my asset data. AST:BaseElement seems like the natural place to do this, since it joins AST:Attributes and BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement. All I should need to do is create an overlay and bring in 'LastScanDate' from BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement ... super easy. And in fact, I have done this on my dev box, and it SEEMS ok, but then I got to thinking about it ... In the past, I made the horrendous mistake of overlaying BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement, and THAT truely hosed my system on upgrade (even though I deleted the overlay prior to upgrading). I'd hate to stumble into that sort of minefield again. A quick search on communities didn't seem to turn up a whole lot, so I thought I'd ask here. Anyone have experience overlaying AST:BaseElement? Did it work out for you? Cause nightmares? Thanks eveyone -Andy _ARSlist: Where the Answers Are and have been for 20 years_ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years
