How are the Asset and CI Lifecycle Stage and Status fields synced?

Erick18 · ‎02-16-2022

After adding the new lifecycle stage and status fields to the Hardware Asset table and the Hardware CI table I noticed that the status are not staying in sync. The scenario is that I updated the life cycle stage and status field on the Hardware record but the CI fields don't sync and vice versa. Is there a process that should be running to keep these in sync or can I add the Lifecycle fields to the existing Asset - CI Field Mapping table (alm_asset_ci_field_mapping)?

Thanks,

Erick

Scott Halverso1 · ‎02-17-2022

I agree Erik, it feels like a miss in the product.

If you migrate to use the new lifecycle fields and update the value on the asset side there is nothing syncing lifecycle to the cmdb.

On the CMDB side if you update the lifecycle fields, there is a business rule called update legacy from CSDM. That BR goes and updates the legacy CI status fields which then if mapped in the syncer tables as Shloke mentioned above, will sync to the legacy asset fields which then hit a BR on asset called Update lifecycle from legacy which then update the assets lifecycle fields. A big Rube Goldberg machine.

It doesn't feel like these fields are ready for prime time which is probably why ServiceNow's CSDM team to date only advised clients to start migrating to the new lifecycle construct on the hardware models.

View solution in original post

Alec Hanson · ‎09-22-2022

Hi,

Has anyone else had any further experience with this syncing of the lifecycle stages? It seems that even in Tokyo (in my PDI anyway) that this has still NOT be resolved for a new install.

I am keen to help my client start with these new stage fields and not implement the legacy solution, but does feel incomplete.

As there is obviously quite a bit or work undertaken to create this OOTB mapping and therefore confusing why the lifecycle stage/stage status across CI & Asset are not keeping in sync. It would be great to hear from @scott.lemm on whether this is truely a gap or we are missing something completely.

Marek Meres · ‎01-30-2023

Hi, I have the same feeling - enabled this on Tokyo PDI and CI and Asset lifecycle values do not sync... unless you modify the legacy attributes... but then you can get quite weird combinations, at least on my PDI (pure ootb). I am going to withdraw the recommendation of migrating to new Lifecycle status values for time being to my client... It resembles "Discovery migration from probes to patterns" story...