4 Replies Latest reply on Dec 5, 2013 9:13 AM by Smita Ithape

    Does anybody know how entries getting created in "delete" status in AST:CMDB Association form?

    Smita Ithape
      Share This:

      Hello experts,

       

      I want to know  how entries getting can be created in "delete" status in AST:CMDB Association form?I could see last modifies by AR escaltor but did not see any escalation on this form and also bot able to freeze the behavior for particular scenario.

      ITSM 7.6.04,it would be great if anyone can help me to know the possible cases to create\soft delete  entries.

       

      Thank you,

      Smita

        • 1. Re: Does anybody know how entries getting created in "delete" status in AST:CMDB Association form?
          Ashok Kumar Jha

          Hi Smita,

          If i have understood you correctly, you want to know how/when a record gets created in AST:CMDB Association form in delete status.

          This could be the possible reason and i am taking an example of Incident Management.

          1) Open the Incident form in new mode.

          2) Browse to relationship tab, and attach a CI to it. [Do not save the incident]

           

          Here, in this case, you will find that the CI association with the Incident record is in Delete status.

          The entry will be enabled once you save the Incident record. This is a general practice in ITSM where child/related record is created before the parent record.

           

          There was an issue reported wherein, the relationship record was not set to enabled status upon saving the parent record [Incident in this case]. This was fixed in ITSM 7604 SP4. So i would recommend upgrading to SP4.

           

          Thanks.

          2 of 2 people found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Does anybody know how entries getting created in "delete" status in AST:CMDB Association form?
            Smita Ithape

            Hi Ashok,

             

            Thank you very much  for your response as far as i know from report incident is in Relationship type 'Related To' with CI(Service CI) below are the field values:

            AssetLifecycleStatus-->Ordered

            Form Name*-->HPD:Help Desk

            Form Name*-->AST:BusinessService

            Last Modified By-->AR_ESCALATOR

            Request Type01-->Incident

            Status*-->Delete

            Status-INC-->Closed if we consider Incident might not have saved thatis why record entry is in Deleted status but i see Status-INC field with value,'closed' there are many records on daily basis.

            Can you please help me to know the possible reason?

             

            Thank you,

            Smita

             

             

             


            • 3. Re: Does anybody know how entries getting created in "delete" status in AST:CMDB Association form?

              Following is one of the scenario where I know records got created with Delete status in CMDB:Association form.

              If you create an Incident with Impacted CI (from classification table), then using some of the workflow it initially create record in CMDB:Association form with Delete status.

              Filter INT:FNDHPD:SAI:CICreateAssociation_PHAS_300

              But again their is another filter which makes the status again back to enable (seems like that flow is not working at your end)

              Delete Status.jpg

              Following is the OOTB flow which should in normal scenario:

               

              INT:FNDHPD:SAI:CICreateAssociation_PHAS_300 (Creates record with status as Delete)

              HPD:INC:EnableChildren_799_PASE (it sets z1d_action=Start)

              INT:ASTFND:ASE:EnableASTAssoc_715_PAAA (It again sets back status as Enable)

               

              Check if the filter

              HPD:INC:EnableChildren_799_PASE (it sets z1d_action=Start)

              INT:ASTFND:ASE:EnableASTAssoc_715_PAAA (It again sets back status as Enable) are not working in your case.

               

              ---------

              JD

              1 of 1 people found this helpful