What is `Allow fallback to parent's rules` used for

[pbels1]

In the identification entry there is a field `Allow fallback to parent's rules`.  What is this field used for?

[mbourla]

Hi Cindy,

In fact we did have a meeting some months back with Navin, and ran through various issues we have had with IRE.  This one about falling back to parent's rules wasn't one of them though.  Navin was going to come back with answers or feedback on the key issues, but I assume he hasn't had the time as yet.  So I don't think it would make sense to refer this particular question on to Navin too at this time.  

However it would definitely be helpful if you could mention to him that we've been discussing this, and post his explanation here on exactly how that "Allow fallback to parent's rules" checkbox works.  That would hopefully explain why it's on the Identifier Entries rather than the overall CI Identifier.

Thanks

Michael

[Cindy Trieu]

Hi Michael,

So I had a discussion with Navin and my colleagues about this behavior. You're right, this checkbox "Allow fallback to parent's rules" is very confusing and based on both what we and you understand, we also concluded it shouldn't be on an identifier rule level based on our discussion of how it works. It definitely seems like it should be on the overall rule level, rather than the individual identifier level. Seems like this checkbox was a requirement for service mapping a long time ago but we never changed it to make it easier to understand. We're going to take a look at how it would affect the ingestion process if we change it from per identifier entry to only checking the class rule, but we understand your confusion and we have a plan to look at this moving forward.

As for your question on the independent CI level, we have added a similar implementation for these identifiers. For our service graph connector team, we have added a way to add rules based on our parents criterion attributes. They wanted a lot of fine control though, so it's not as simple as falling back to all of a parent's rules, but rather they wanted to fall back to specific rules. You will have to create an identifier entry using the parent's table (so Hardware) but created on your lower class. This feature is available starting in Xanadu. Here is the documentation on it: https://docs.servicenow.com/bundle/xanadu-servicenow-platform/page/product/configuration-management/... 

Let me know if you have further questions! I'd be happy to ask Navin and my colleagues more questions if you have more.

Cindy

[mbourla]

Thanks, Cindy.

I’m not really clear on what you're meaning by “create an identifier entry using the parent’s table but created on your lower class”.  I may be missing it but I can’t see it mentioned in that docs page.

As the docs pages says “Search On Table is preset to the currently selected table in the CI Classes list”.  My own proposal was to be able to select a parent table as the “Search On Table”, on individual Identifier Entries.  I haven't checked but I'm assuming that's what is now possible in Xanadu.

My alternative suggestion was to allow “Allow fallback to parent’s rules” to apply to independent CI Identifiers. 

I submitted that proposal about a year ago on the Ideas Portal (see https://support.servicenow.com/now?id=view_idea&sysparm_idea_id=f3bd209493307150d9743f986cba1043&sys...).  Sadly, I was notified  quite recently that my idea was being closed because of its age. 

When we met with Navin earlier this year to discuss issues we’d encountered with IRE, he did say that in Xanadu it *would* be possible for Identifier Entries to search on parent tables.  So it’s good to know that it is indeed now in the product.

But it’s very frustrating and disappointing for users like me when they raise what they believe are good ideas, and they expire with no evidence that they’ve even been read. 

Having said that, it’s definitely good news that it *is* now possible to search on parent tables, and also that the way the “Allow fallback to parent’s rules” checkbox works may be changed and made clearer in future.

Regards

Michael

[Cindy Trieu]

Hey Michael, let me show you with a visual/example rather than with words. So in my screenshot you can see that I'm creating a new identifier entry on Linux Server, but I can actually choose one of its parents instead. It's not a broad "fallback to parent" like with dependent rules, but it gives you the ability to "fallback" to match on parent attributes if my Linux Server doesn't get matched based on its own rules. For some concerns around too frequent of class switching, we didn't add a broader fallback. I see the docs have not yet been updated to reflect that you can choose the table you are currently configuring or one of its parents, so I'll send this feedback along to the doc writing team.

I'm sorry your idea has been auto-closed, that is very frustrating, but from reading your description, this new Xanadu feature may be what you are looking for. I wonder if you can associate this issue with a version it is fixed in or not, but please try it out when you can and let me know if it solves your use case!

I understand your frustration and disappointment, so I will make sure to follow-up on the dependent allow fallback option at the very least. I plan to make it an actionable item so that someone who is available will be able to see it in our to-do and make the appropriate changes.

This conversation has been very insightful to me and my team Michael, so know that your feedback is very much appreciated and it is not going to be lost! If you have more questions, let me know any time. I'll be popping in around the forums when I can, hopefully more frequently!

[mbourla]

Thanks, Cindy.  That new functionality looks ideal.  I'll try it out. 

Many thanks for your help and input - much appreciated.