Extending Cloud Resource table

[mcconnellsj]

Customer has successfully deployed ITOM Discovery of Azure using OOTB Cloud Workspace, (Azure Service Graph Connector is not installed)

Discovery has bundled the following objects into "Cloud Resource" table - cmdb_ci_cmp_resource.  Shown as "Resource Type" with friendly name in paranthesis:

• microsoft.apimanagement/service (API Management)
• microsoft.datafactory/factories - (Data Factory)
• microsoft.insights/components - (Application Insight)
• microsoft.keyvault/vaults - (Key Vault)
• microsoft.logic/workflows - (Logic App)
• microsoft.operationalinsights/workspaces - (Workspace)
• microsoft.recoveryservices/vaults (Recovery Service)
• microsoft.servicebus/namespaces - (Service Bus)
• microsoft.web/serverfarms - (App Service Plan)

The DevOps team that manage these items would like them shown as their own cmdb class, using the "friendly" name shown.

It is noted that these items are populated using the "Azure Resource Inventory (LP)" pattern.

Questions:

1. What is the easiest path to distributing these resources to their appropriate class?
2. Would a separate pattern be required for each one?
3. If so, what is the simplest way to acheive this without starting from scratch? (Assuming the new patterns are almost identical to the original)
4. Would Azure Service Graph Connector provide this already?

It is noted that the table cmdb_ci_azure_api_mgmt is already part of the CDMB extended classes.  Is this the same object as

• microsoft.apimanagement/service (API Management)?

[pratik0306]

Yes the classification of many cloud resouces is done to the generic class from past few versions.. M not sure how much work would it be if you want to classify them separately but definitely that would be from scratch from my understanding and a lot of back and forth testing will be needed.

There is a mapping that ServiceNow has started providing but i see the last update is of Sept 2023.

servicenow-discovery-patterns-api-details.xlsx (live.com)

[Bommera]

@mcconnellsj I do have the same requirement to separate certain items from 'Cloud Resource' table and populate them in a different table. Were you able to find any solution for it?

[mcconnellsj]

@BommeraNo, it is left as is for now.  Had advice from colleagues not to play with the classes that are OOTB.  For now the business tolerates it.  It does seem a little lazy not to have separate patterns for something like a data factory which is a critical component.

[Bommera]

Thanks @mcconnellsj for the prompt reply.