Asset and CI question

[Michael Lineba2]

This note from the documentation presents a question that I currently don have an answer for. 

• If an Asset exists and has a reference to that ci (by sys_id), even if it is not associated on the CI record
• Asset not created

How can an asset have a refence to a ci and not be associated with that ci?

[Robbie]

Hi @Michael Lineba2,

This does seem an odd statement. However, I do see a scenario where this could in fact be correct (Although not ideal, but could easily occur in real life)

The CI table has an Asset field (Type reference pointing to Asset). This could in fact be empty. So whilst the Asset is 'not associated on the CI record' - (ci or appropriate ci table such as 'cmdb_ci_computer'), it would be 'associated' through the Asset relationship and the 'Configuration Item' field on the Asset table (record).

So in short, a 1 way way relationship from Asset to CI.

I'm not saying I agree with the statement from the docs, I'm just reading what you've typed and trying to make sense of it knowing how SN is sometimes configured in the background.

The reality is that CI's and Asset's are created in a myriad of ways via feeds, discovery and all sorts of integrations, therefore relationships are not always thought through or configured correctly.

To help others (or for me to help you more directly), please mark this response correct by clicking on Accept as Solution and/or Helpful.

Thanks, Robbie

[Deepak Shaerma]

Hi @Michael Lineba2 

Here are a few scenarios where an Asset might have a reference to a CI but not be fully associated:
1. Unidirectional Link: The Asset record has the sys_id of the CI, effectively creating a link from the Asset to the CI. However, if the CI doesn’t have a corresponding back-reference to the Asset, this association might be considered incomplete or unidirectional. Both records are aware of each other in a fully associated state, ensuring bidirectional visibility.

2. Data Synchronization Issues: There might be a data synchronization issue where the Asset was supposed to be linked (associated) with the CI, but due to an error or a glitch, the process did not complete entirely. This could leave the Asset with a reference to the CI without being properly associated according to the system’s logic or rules.

3. Legacy or Orphaned References: In large and complex systems, it is possible for an Asset to have a reference to a CI that no longer exists or has been significantly changed. This could happen due to data cleanup, migration, or restructuring processes. The Asset retains the sys_id reference to the CI, but without the CI’s presence or relevance, the association is practically void.

4. Manual or Erroneous Linking: It could be a result of manual data entry or a mistaken script that incorrectly set the sys_id reference on an Asset without fulfilling other criteria or steps required for a proper association. This could make the reference exist without a fully compliant association as dictated by the system’s business rules or data integrity checks.
Note: Please Mark this Helpful and Accepted Solution. If this Helps you to understand. This will help us a lot.
Thanks & Regards 
Deepak Sharma

[Its_Azar]

Hey there @Michael Lineba2 

This can be  due to various reasons.

There might be inconsistencies or errors in the data where the asset reference to the CI is not properly synchronized with the association records. This could be due to manual errors, data import issues, or system glitches.

The reference to the CI on the asset record may be a historical reference that was valid at a certain point in time but is no longer actively associated with the CI. Changes to CI relationships or asset configurations over time might result in such discrepancies.

In complex environments, an asset may have references to multiple CIs for dependency tracking or reporting purposes, even if it is not directly associated with those CIs. This could be part of a larger system architecture where assets interact with various components.

If this helps kindly accept the response thanks much.