Discovery source Service-now vs. ServiceNow

robpickering · ‎07-28-2015

We recently purchased Discovery from ServiceNow and I just finished taking the Discovery - Fuji virtual training class.

In our lab systems on Fuji, it appears that the "Discovery source" is always set to "ServiceNow" when Discovery adds or updates a CI in the CMDB. However, in our Fuji test system, when I run Discovery, the Discovery source is being set to "Service-now".

Any ideas why? We're going to writing various reports and notifications, and I'd prefer to not have to code to both conditions when trying to determine how a CI was added or updated in the CMDB.

-Rob

robpickering · ‎07-29-2015

Doug, thanks for digging into this with me. We have a nifty global search enabled on our Instance thanks to our work with Crossfuze. I decided to utilize that and look what I found:

glide.discovery.source_name - The default ServiceNow name for populating the discovery_source field for CIs. Old customers will continue to have "Service-now" as the default where as new customers will have "ServiceNow" as the default.

Ours was last modified on 1/24/14 which is when we upgraded to Dublin. I'm guessing that everyone who was on Calgary got this System Property set, so that Discovery Source would remain consistent over time. However, in our case, we never implemented Discovery, so now it ends up just forcing customers who do adopt to have a legacy setting.

I've updated ours to "ServiceNow" to give us a more modern feel.

-Rob

View solution in original post

doug_schulze · ‎07-28-2015

Hey Robert!

Yeah that was a change (not sure why) by our dev team.. Till you get everything updated in Fuji you are going to have to add that to your report filters.. Apologies for the trouble.

robpickering · ‎07-28-2015

Doug, we're seeing this with newly created and discovered CIs by Discovery, in Fuji. Is there a system setting somewhere? If we manually change them to "ServiceNow" will it "stick"?

doug_schulze · ‎07-28-2015

No they wont, for theres a script include that sets that value...But come to think of it.. if you normalize the value, that should work!

robpickering · ‎07-28-2015

Doug, does that imply that we have an older version of that Script Include with the older value (I'm assuming Service-now is the old version)?

I wonder if it got touched by us at some point, and therefore didn't get upgraded. I'll take a look at Field Normalization, though that looks like it'd be more trouble than it's worth for this particular situation.

Thanks for the quick responses.

-Rob