7 Replies Latest reply on Jan 7, 2011 11:03 PM by Raghava Sanam

    Using Extended Object in Compliance Rules

      Hi All,


           I want to make a compliance rule on the Solaris Server Make Model. For that we have an Extended Object

      "Hardware Information.Machine Summary:/".Model and I'm using this EO and creating a rule like


      "Hardware Information.Machine Summary:/".Model    equals    SPARC Enterprise M4000 Server and trying to save this rule. I got the below following error:




      Though it's throwing error, I tried to save it and it took some time to save. But here problem is, when i'm running a compliance job with this template and the job is success and all server's are passed this compliance test, though couple of server's make model is not SPARC Enterprise M4000 Server.


      Please help me out.



      Raghava Sanam

        • 2. Re: Using Extended Object in Compliance Rules
          Bill Robinson

          I think you want Name = ‘sparc ..’ or value1 = ‘sparc ..’

          • 3. Using Extended Object in Compliance Rules

            Now i'm not getting any null pointer exception, but all my target machienes passed the below condition, even couple of servers are not Blade T6300 model.



            i'm trying below condition:




                 "Hardware Information.Machine Summary:/".Model = "Blade T6300"






            Note: ??TARGET.SOLARIS_OBP_VERSION?? is custom system property.


            1.Is this the correct way to use the Distributed Object properties in compliance rules?


            2.I have a solaris sparc box:


                       OS= Solaris 5.8

                      Server Model=Sun-Fire-480R


                   Where i'm not able to populate the distributed objects on this machine.


            Please provide me your valuable inputs on this as we are not able to go ahead without this in our compliance rule.

            • 4. Using Extended Object in Compliance Rules


              That seems to be an indication that your condition "Hardware Information.Machine Summary:/".Model = "Blade T6300" is not correct, hence non of your servers will do the DBP version check. Could you post both the EO definition and the output when you access the EO. As Bill mentions you probably need to look into Name or value1 instread of just Model

              • 5. Using Extended Object in Compliance Rules



                  I'm capturing the "Hardware Information.Machine Summary:/".Model from Distributed Configuration Object named "Hardware Information". This DCO contains all Machine Summary  information. Please find the below screenshot.


                NOTE: "Hardware Information.Machine Summary:/".Model is built-in extended object which will come with the BBSA 8.0 SP6 product. If you run the Distributed Configuration Object on any machine, you will get this Hardware Information EO.



                Now i'm able to capture what is my Machine Model.

                So, I wrote a Custom Server Property which identifies the OBP Version of Each Server.


                Generally, the OBP Version is different from each server model. So, I want to check the condition




                     "Hardware Information.Machine Summary:/".Model = "Blade T6300"








                Reply to your question: My compliance rule is passed on all server different server models, which is not correct.


                Kindly do the needful ASAP.

                • 6. Re: Using Extended Object in Compliance Rules

                  This really seems like a bug to me. I did a quick test in my environment and get the same behaviour.


                  ScreenHunter_01 Jan. 06 15.02.gif

                  There is a green Play-button to test your compliance rule against one or more servers/components. I used that to verify that even if the if-statement fails (correctly marked in red) the whole rule is marked as valid.

                  What do you say, Bill? Doesn't this look like a bug?

                  • 7. Using Extended Object in Compliance Rules

                    So, was it confirmed that it was a bug. As I got the same problem with other objects also like unix users, unix groups etc.,