Data Lookup and Record Matching using dot-walking capabilities

[aaron_damyen]

The existing Data Lookup Definitions in the Data Lookup and Record Matching plug-in currently limit the fields for matching to only fields on the source table.

The matching fields should be able to use the dot-walking capabilities that is available throughout the Platform to reference fields in other tables. The setting fields probably should not be able to perform dot-walking, as it seems inappropriate for the purpose of the rule.

As an example, we wish to do incident routing based on Category, Subcategory and Caller's Location. With the Data Lookup Definitions, this is not possible directly. We have created a work-around by using a script to copy the Caller's Location to the Task's Location. However, this will become an issue when we start using the Task's Location field to identify where the task is required to happen, not where it was sourced from.

The old Assignment Rules module does have this flexibility. However, this module does not seem to be granted an long lifespan and will probably be phased out soon. Additionally, I'd rather not maintain a script for matching, when a set of records is a better architecture choice. Plus, I can report on it.

[Mark Stanger]

I agree completely with this. This is the major limitation of an otherwise killer ServiceNow feature. As it is now, the only way is to create the fields and put them on the incident (or other) form. We've done department and location-based assignment this way, but it's really not ideal.

[valkyrichek]

I see this is an old topic, but I guess there is still no solution to this other than the one suggested by Mark?

[cdeclos]

Hello Valentina

I'm just running into the very same frustration and the response I got from SNC support is the following:

"Issue Summary: Dot-walked fields in a Data Lookup Rule

Solution Proposed:

Currently this is the expected behaviour, Data Lookups Definitions do no tallow to access extended tables by dot-walking. They are limited to select one Source Table and one Matcher Table. An enhancement request FTASK19305 has been submitted for the development team to review and evaluate if it would be possible to include this feature on a future release.   As mentioned in the communities (say "this post"), a possible workaround could be " to create the fields and put them on the incident (or other) form"

As Mark says its a painful limitation...

Cheers,

Christian  

[Hutter]

For anyone interested in this topic, I have created a Idea in the Idea Portal:

https://community.servicenow.com/community?id=view_idea&sysparm_idea_id=8534626edb91a05066f1d9d96896...