Valid use for "Assign from Stock" in Change Requests?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎02-12-2018 09:50 AM
We found that our Change Requests were updating the "Assigned to" field on Business Application CIs. Our developer did some digging and found the culprit to be the Out-of-the-box Business Rule "Assign from Stock" which is updating the Assigned to value on the CI to the name of the person initiating the Change Request.
Our developer claims the system is "working as designed".
Admittedly our Change Management module is highly customized (as is our Business Application CI table).
My question is: is there ever a reason for the "Assign from Stock" business rule to be triggered on a Change Request for an application that is already in use and has no need for any of the CI attributes to actually be updated by the change at hand?
Additionally, how should I request our developer modify the "Assign from Stock" rule so that it is not triggered by any Change Request?
The script of the "Assign from Stock" business rule is as follows:
The script in that Business Rule sets these fields ( including install_status to '4', which is "Pending Install"):
cmdb_ci.install_status = 4; // pending install
cmdb_ci.assigned_to = current.request.requested_for;
cmdb_ci.assigned = gs.nowDateTime();
- Labels:
-
Change Management
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎06-14-2018 07:30 AM
Hi,
But in our instance, the same business rule is there on Requested Item[sc_req_item] table and we are also facing same issue when ever we modify the CI field on RITM.
how come same business rule on two tables which is OOTB? it is really annoying.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
‎02-26-2020 09:35 AM
I know this is a old thread but most implementation's that I have done this rule gets inactivated. leaving it Causes nothing but issues. I have never found the reasoning behind this rule other than if the RITM is for a Workstation request perhaps, it would auto assign the CI workstation to the requested for and ultimately the the sync hardware rules will update the asset to be assigned to the CI's assigned to.
I think its just a business rule that causes more issues than its worth and should be turned off. Too many situations where it would work against you.