Discovery is ignoring reconciliation rule

David A2 · ‎04-09-2019

I have a reconciliation rule configured for Linux servers where the "description" and "used for" field are not supposed to be able to be updated by Discovery. Manual entry was given description and used for, those two fields were taken away from Discovery. Yet Discovery keeps overwriting this field. Does anyone have any ideas what I'm doing wrong?

I've tried this fix but it hasn't helped - https://hi.service-now.com/kb_view.do?sysparm_article=KB0622373

David A2 · ‎05-14-2019

In case anyone else runs into this, the UNIX classifier probe is writing an output to the description field (likely for use by subsequent probes). The reconciliation engine does not come into play during the classification phase of discovery. The 'fix' is to use patterns.

"Discovery via patterns will completely go through the IRE. With probes, only the

identification phase will go through the IRE. Probes executed in the identification phases

do go through IRE and probes executed in the exploration phase do not go through IRE

layer. The end result is that only a partial attribute of the main CI goes through IRE and

the rest (the entire main CI and all related CIs) do not."

View solution in original post

DaveHertel · ‎04-09-2019

Hi -- I haven't seen this but after looking at the KB article, I see its predicated on the discovery source name = ServiceNow. By any chance has this value been adjusted on your instance?... which would prevent the patch from working. Just a thought.

Hope this helps...

David A2 · ‎04-09-2019

Dave, I'm not even sure where those discovery sources can be edited or confirmed? Any ideas?

DaveHertel · ‎04-09-2019

Check out this doc on managing the source names applied by Discovery and other sources

James Hammond · ‎04-09-2019

Hello,

Have you figured what part of the Discovery process is overwriting your fields? Description is an out of the box field that is sometimes updated as part of the Classification phase, rather than the Exploration phase which is done with a Pattern. This may lead to it not being held to the Data Precedence rules you have in place.