Interested in a ServiceNow event built for developers? Registration for now[dev]26 is officially open!

Parent Archive Rule failing to cascade archive

mdcyb
Tera Contributor

My parent Archive Rule is failing to run referenced 'child' Archive Rules.

 

The goal for this archival is to archive [incident_alert] and [incident_alert_task] records when an [incident] record matching the criteria in the parent rule is found. Since the Related Records for Archive Rules cannot dot walk, and [incident_alert_task] references [incident_alert] and not [incident], I cannot add [incident_alert_task] records as Related Records of the parent rule like I can for [incident_alert] records which directly reference [incident] records.

 

After extensive online research, I gathered that the solution was to create 'child' rules and reference those in the "Referenced table rule" field of Related Records. With that, I created two new child rules. Here is my structure:

 

Archive Rule 1: "Incident - Inactive and closed 7 or more years ago" (Active)
Archive Related Record:

  • Action: Archive
  • Reference: incident_alert.source_incident
  • Reference table: Incident Communication Plan [incident_alert]
  • Reference element: source_incident
  • Reference table rule: Incidents Cascade - [incident_alert]

 

Archive Rule 2: "Incidents Cascade - [incident_alert]" (Inactive)
Archive Related Record:

  • Action: Archive
  • Reference: incident_alert_task.comm_plan
  • Reference table: Incident Communication Task [incident_alert_task]
  • Reference element: comm_plan
  • Reference table rule: Incidents Cascade - [incident_alert_task]

 

Archive Rule 3: "Incidents Cascade - [incident_alert_task]" (Inactive)
No Related Records

 

I have also tried chaining these through the Parent fields and have activated rules 2 and 3 with the criteria being "sys_id is not empty", but they never ran with any combination of the two. Since rule 2 is never ran, rule 3 is never ran. None of the (sparse) examples of this configuration that I've come across have been able to solve my dilemma.

 

Is this a misunderstanding or misconfiguration on my part or a bug?

0 REPLIES 0