Populate "Datasource History" table with SCCM Integration

[Gaetano De Mitr]

Hello to all,

I need to populate the cmdb_datasource_last_update table when a Computer is created by SCCM integration, since not populating this table (cmdb_datasource_last_update), the rules of Datasource Precedence and Reconciliation Definitions do not work. As a better approach, what do you recommend:

• Create an onBefore Transform script on the following SCCM Transform "SCCM 2012 v2 Computer Identity", using the IRE API, or
• do an insert BR, "onAfter" on the cmdb_ci_computer table that populates the records in the "cmdb_datasource_last_update" table by setting Datasource = SCCM?

My aim is to give SCCM absolute priority over Computers (Workstations) on any field

Furthermore, since to date there are already Computers created by SCCM but without recond in the "Datasource History" table, I imagine an initial remediation should be done on the AS-IS.

Do you agree?

[Gaetano De Mitr]

Hi Patrick.

Thanks for your interest.

So, I opened ticket on HI portal and I've proposed to populate by scripts the entires into Database History table ( without using IRE ).

Scenario to load data by Import Set:

Transform Maps:

1) Insert the record on alm_asset table ( Workstation )

2) Transform script onAfter to creare entries on Datasource History table

notes: target.ci will be Configuration Item field on Datasource History field.

The update on Computer Identity Transform map for SCCM is not needed,

because with massive upload by Import Set, all right entries will be created on Datasource History table to allow the Reconciliation rule to works good.

[Gaetano De Mitr]

obviously it's a workaround.

In Orlando release the issue has been resolved using IRE.

Gaetano

[Patrick DeCarl1]

You see https://store.servicenow.com/sn_appstore_store.do#!/store/application/9a2ce8f60f80001067ae409dc4767e...

[Gaetano De Mitr]

Yes, but

the new feature is compatible starting from Orlando Version.

[Patrick DeCarl1]

Yes and L release should be end of life. N-1 policy no?