Does a sys_updated_on applied to a child table always update the extended table, too?

[SB87]

I have tested the following scenario:

- Updated a field that belongs to an incident e.g. resolved_at and can see the incident records returns a sys_updated_on value of when I performed this update

- I then checked the extended [task] table, even though the above field does not belong to the [task] table, to see if this too returned a sys_updated_on value too, for which it did

Assumption:

Following the above, I've assumed any updates applied to a child table will also apply an update to the extended tables for which it extends. Is this generally correct?

Side question:

I have come across a scenario where another team appears to have created another sys_user record for the same user but under a new sys_id (two separate records for the same user) and then updated an asset (alm_asset.assigned_to) to point to the new user sys_id which is confirmed when reviewing the asset in ServiceNow and then previewing the assigned_to user account, however the asset did not receive a sys_updated_on update.

My guess is that they performed this activity via a script and used autoSysFields(false) which updated the asset but did not force an update to the sys_updated_on. Does this sound plausible? 

[Ankur Bawiskar]

@SB87 

the reason it works for incident and task is because incident is extending task table

yes it could be that reason

When autoSysFields(false) is used in a script, it prevents the system fields like sys_updated_on, sys_updated_by, sys_created_on, and sys_created_by from being updated. This would explain why the asset did not receive a sys_updated_on update even though the assigned_to field was changed.

If my response helped please mark it correct and close the thread so that it benefits future readers

[SB87]

Thanks, so excluding the autoSysFields(false) scenario, if I was a user updating a sys_user record and the sys_user record is reference by an asset, then should we expect the [alm_asset].sys_updated_on to be updated if an update was saved against the user table e.g. change of users last name?

Thanks for your reply.

[Ankur Bawiskar]

@SB87 

nope.

you are updating sys_user and that's a separate record when compared to alm_asset

It's just that the asset is associated with that user record

If my response helped please mark it correct and close the thread so that it benefits future readers.

[Ankur Bawiskar]

@SB87 

Thank you for marking my response as helpful.

If my response helped please mark it correct and close the thread so that it benefits future readers.