Why isn't the request line field updated on the asset form?

Adrienne Kueber · ‎02-17-2023

The request line field is not updated on the asset form for transfer and local orders, and is only updated for purchase orders. In the AssetAutomationAPI script include, I can see that this is intentional as the OOB script include has a comment saying they are not populated (screenshot attached). Is there a reason why and are there any ramifications to populating the request line for transfer/local orders to mimic purchase orders?

Oscar D · ‎06-28-2023

Hey Adrienne,

We meet again. 😛

The Request Line represents the initial request that led to the creation of the asset and resulted to incurred expense line. That is why the request line is located under the financial tab as it represents the request the result to the purchase. Typically, assets are created during the Purchase Order (PO) process, specifically when utilizing the Procurement plugin. The Sourcing and Transfer orders are responsible for moving the asset around, so it wouldn't make sense to update the Request Line in those cases, as they didn't contribute to the asset's creation.

It's important to understand that when you update the Request Line on an asset, it triggers a Business Rule (BR) that updates the configuration item on the Requested Item (RITM) associated with the asset. This update to the RITM's configuration item, in turn, triggers another update that modifies the configuration assigned to the request's "requested_for" field, including location. These changes are then synchronized back to the asset via the Asset-CI field sync.

I mention this because if you update the Request Line on the asset using a script, and the "Assigned To" field differs from the "requested_for" field on the original request, it could overwrite the assigned person or cause mismatches in unexpected ways between different fields. For example, if an asset is reserved for an individual and located in a stockroom, when you update the Request Line then the assigned to updated on CI which sync to asset, a business rule stops the update as its reserved, this sync backs to CI clearing assigned to, but the location is maintained from assigned to. Now you asset is located in a different location than the associated stockroom. Therefore, it's advisable to only update the Request Line on the asset if the request indeed resulted in the creation of the asset. Otherwise, consider using the Consume Asset Task or Transfer Order when scripting something unrelated to the asset's creation record.

In the scenario where you are integrating with vendor whom is managing your inventory and utilizing HAM pro the process would look something like this: 1) Stock Order is submitted in which you order a bulk amount of models which in-turn creates all the associated asset. The Request Line would be tied to the bulk request. 2) Vendor send asset to end user then you could utilize a transfer order or consume to track the deployment of device. Repeat step 2 every time the asset is deployed.

I hope that help,

Oscar

View solution in original post

Alex Mikesell · ‎08-13-2024

Assign from Stock doesn't update the location though? Our ITAM owners want to disable the request line submission from updating anything on the record so trying to hunt down what's causing the changes. Is there another BR being called for location update?

Oscar D · ‎08-13-2024

@Alex Mikesell - Depending on product suite there are multiple areas where a location could be updated but keeping with the current conversation the below BR is what you are looking for:

Update location as needed
- On the cmdb_ci table runs every time the assigned to changes on the CI and updates location to assigned to location

If you have Hardware Asset Management Professional (HAMP) and are using the standard request flow, a flow action will call the assetautomationapi script include, which automatically updates the asset location based on the requested user. The same process applies to asset actions within Incident and Change Management. This update on the asset record would then be synced to CI.

Not recommended, but you could in theory update the Asset-CI sync configuration within the "alm_asset_ci_field_mapping" if you want to maintain separate location on CI vs Assets, but this has shown to cause a lot of data discrepancy resulting to not know where an asset is actually located. The sync is also governed by BRs