Extending sys_user_group table - loading AD groups
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-13-2014 03:30 PM
Hi all,
Does anyone have experience loading AD groups into ServiceNow?
I've recently gotten my LDAP via MID Server connection to work. Now I'm thinking of extending the sys_user_group table in order to create a new table, "AD Groups", to load all the groups from Active Directory into it (since our ServiceNow groups serve a different function in the organization than the AD groups do, I thought I'd keep them in a separate table). The problem is - it doesn't seem like sys_user_group is one of the tables that's available to extend. Is there a way around this? Can one extend a table and bypass these limitations of the table creator module? Should I be loading AD Groups into sys_user_group instead? What's the best practice here?
Thank you,
Dmitri
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-13-2014 04:41 PM
Hi there,
You can extend a table by going to the table properties and selecting "extend".
In regards to the groups, I am just configuring my AD integration at the moment and will be doing something similar in regards to having the AD groups in a different table.
In regards on what you should do, it is really up to what you are trying to achieve. If your AD groups have nothing to do with SN groups (they are just there for info) then storing in a different table would, in my opinion, be the better option. Well, it's what I will be doing.
Pete
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-14-2014 11:45 PM
My personal idea on this would be to just load them in the standard sys_user_group table and differentiate them using either a special field for it, or adding a specific type (existing field "type").
I would only extend table if i have to:
- define specific access right to it
- add a lot of specific field to it (that is don't want to have on the "parent" table).
Again, this is my very own opinion 🙂
Marc.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-16-2014 06:28 AM
Hi Marc,
That makes sense. Thanks for clearing it up! Both of those criteria apply here - so I think I will look for a way to extend it.
Thank you,
Dmitri
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
09-16-2014 06:31 AM
Hmm, sounds good Pete.
I found the 'extensible' option once you go to the Dictionary, then do "Show Table" - then the option is available.
Now to figure out the consequences of doing that.
Thanks!
Dmitri