6 Replies Latest reply on Apr 4, 2020 1:00 AM by Sateesh Kulkarni

    Odd solution listed in KA000182340 for isVirtual field (530054200)

    Daniel Hudsky
      Share This:

      https://selfservice.bmc.com/casemgmt/sc_KnowledgeArticle?sfdcid=000182340

       

      The solution of this article linked above (accessible only if you have a valid customer based subscription) states that we're supposed to "Delete the (isVirtual) field from all the child job forms" and from BaseElement (CDM Class hierarchy).

       

      It gives a link to a BMC document https://docs.bmc.com/docs/ac1908/summary-of-changes-to-the-common-data-model-879729159.html and explains that the "upgrade of the Atrium Integrator 19.08 causes issues". To solve it you're supposed delete and change all sorts of configuration that's already present in production environments.

       

      This solution makes absolutely no sense. Why would BMC move this field into BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement from BMC.CORE:BMC_System?

      isVirtual is part of many RE rules and separates physical hardware from virtual machines. Why would BMC do such thing?

      Is this a mistake by Documentation or the KA writer? This seems way too important to downplay it by just creating a buried KA and make a reference to documentation.

       

      Is this for real? If true then where are the ADDM patterns that reflect this change? We're not seeing this "new" isVirtual field after upgrading to 1908.

      Can someone fact check this?

       

      The article claims that the isVirtual field is now part of CMDB structure with field id 530075026 while the original field id for isVirtual is 530054200.

      Why not create a field that is called isVirtual_Global or something more production friendly than cause a system wide redesign of the rules, mappings and so on?

       

       

      Daniel Hudsky