Additional comments showing sys_id instead of display

[johnfeist]

Someone pointed out to me that they saw an additional comment to a variable update on a catalog item that looked like this:

Variable updated Business or System Owner : value changed from c78685bbdb773e0005afdd0b5e961902 to a5411423db73ba0005afdd0b5e9619c2

Business or System owner is a reference to sys_user.  I was under the impression that all end user facing messages are supposed to show the Display and not the sys_id for any reference value.  Do I need to adjust a property or did I miss something?

All suggestions gratefully accepted.

:{)

[Bert_c1]

Hi,

If those values are from a reference field for the sys_user table, then those records most likely do not exist.  Query sys_user for 'sys_id', 'is one of', '[the two values]'.  And a bit more context would be helpful I believe. such as specific table where there is additional comments. My guess is a business rule is setting the content of the comments.

[Rahul Kumar17]

Hi,

Someone pointed out to me that they saw an additional comment to a variable update on a catalog item that looked like this: Variable updated Business or System Owner : value changed from c78685bbdb773e0005afdd0b5e961902 to a5411423db73ba0005afdd0b5e9619c2 Business or System owner is a reference to sys_user. I was under the impression that all end user facing messages are supposed to show the Display and not the sys_id for any reference value. Do I need to adjust a property or did I miss something?

You are correct that end user facing messages should typically display the Display value for reference fields, rather than the sys_id. However, it's possible that the message you are seeing is a system-generated message that is not intended for end users, and that the sys_id is being displayed for technical reasons.

To determine whether this message is intended for end users or not, you should review the context in which it was generated. If the message was generated as part of a system process, such as an update to a record triggered by a workflow or a business rule, then it's possible that the message is intended for technical users who are familiar with the underlying data model and system processes. In this case, it may be appropriate to display the sys_id, as it can provide more detailed information about the data being updated.

However, if the message was generated as part of a user-facing process, such as a catalog item or a form, then it's likely that the Display value should be displayed instead of the sys_id. In this case, you may want to review the configuration of the catalog item or form to ensure that it is properly configured to display the Display value for reference fields.

If you're unsure about whether the message is intended for end users or not, or if you're unsure about how to properly configure your catalog item or form to display the Display value, you may want to reach out to your ServiceNow administrator or support team for assistance. They should be able to provide guidance on best practices for displaying reference fields in user-facing messages and how to properly configure your catalog item or form.

Thanks,

Rahul Kumar

[johnfeist · Accepted solution]

Thanks guys,

After doing a bunch of digging, I've found that the sys_ids do exist in sys_user and that Name is set to Display on that table.  The Additional Comment is being generated by a BR on sc_item_option.  The issue, from what I can tell is that sc_item_option just stores a value with no context so it has no way of determining what the value is or represents.  I believe that the fix is to bring in a look at item_option_new which will tell me the particulars of that item and if it is a reference, to what table.