Software Models with deactivated discovery maps

[Joe Ryder]

Software Models with Deactivated Discovery Maps

What is this report? Why do we have this available to us? What do I do with the several hundred listed here? I can't tell what the purpose of this report does for us as SAM Pro administrators other than tell us that the DMAP is now listed as "Active = False" and some sort of action should be performed. There's no indication of what to do with this in documentation.

I suspect what I'm supposed to do is know what other DMAP is appropriate for the software model to map to, or create a custom DMAP where there are no other options. But why is that necessary? Why doesn't the content service update these inactive maps and correct associations to active maps?

Rhetorically: If ServiceNow "secret sauce" is the content service's ability to know the right way to associate Software Models and DMAPs, why would we be required to remediate these bad associations? Or are these those updates where an appropriate default DMAP were just no longer maintained by ServiceNow?

Related documentation: https://docs.servicenow.com/bundle/rome-it-asset-management/page/product/software-asset-management2/concept/sam-content-updates.html

[Ken Neikirk1 · Accepted solution]

not my answer but someone else from another post:

https://community.servicenow.com/community?id=community_question&sys_id=d0ec8866db9ef0d0e2adc2230596...

[Joe Ryder]

I appreciate the linkback. It's sometimes tough to get the right keywords to search the forum history here.

Daniel is a wealth of knowledge; he's actually helping my team with a health check. I can ask him as well, but this still seems counter to the spirit of the content service. If they disable the DMAP in favor of another one, they should default to the other one. I guess it is not that way as to not cause the discovery mapping to unintentionally start applying to a different Discovery Model when a SN customer modifies the models. But just "taking no action" and having a list that has old deactivated models you're keeping and new deactivations that you need to review is a messy approach.

Perhaps tagging the records as "keep" or something is relevant. Seems hokey, but perhaps that's all that is available today. I just yearn for clean reports and clean solutions, not something that, if I ever left, would make no sense to the new person... 

[Ken Neikirk1]

yeah, I agree.  It would be helpful to have a recommended replacement put on the deactivated discovery map, at least.

[kievgraham]

The previous post that was linked is archived now. Can anybody offer assistance in this area?