Help/Advise Assignment Rules with modified User Group Field values

[Joe Kline]

We added a couple "Remediation Group" fields to the CMDB CI records.  Attempting to utilize them, we added Assignment Rules (to both CC and VR) to set CTR and VIT assignments to the User Group Field values of cmdb:u_remediation_group_infrastructure or cmdb:u_remediation_group_software (the names of the two new user columns added) based on proper conditions of the field "is not empty".  When I list the rules, my new rules are showing the conditino, assign using fields but the "Assignment value" field is blank for all of them.  The resulting CTR/VIT records are showing the correct Assignment Rule, but the Assignment Group is "(empty)".  I had to customize the form listings to change which groups are available for selecting in the rule.

Anybody out there performed a similar customization to explain what I missed or did incorrectly such that the rule is not picking up the actual value stored in the CI?

Thanks in advance for your time and feedback/comments.

[andy_ojha · Accepted solution]

Hey there - I had to same problem with attachments too 😉 

Interesting - I think I see one wrinkle - you are using the base [CMDB] table on that Choice Value - can you try using {cmdb_ci.u_remediation_group_infrastucture}... instead of {cmdb.u_remediation_group_infrastructure} to see if that changes the behavior?

The field on the VI and TR table is a reference to [CMDB_CI] table.

Let me know if that gets you a win.

[Joe Kline]

Heavy sigh - when I changed the cmdb. to cmdb_ci. I caused a new issue in that when the CMDB created the new remediation group fields for us, the combined table.field notation in the Choice List exceeded the character limit of that Value field on the Rule form.  So I didn't get to see if it would change any of my VITs Assignment Group because it loaded the system logs with "invalid query" warnings.

However, I did get some of these new choice list values and rules promoted over to production last night (with the cmdb. notation) and I am getting values with that over on the PROD instance.  I also confirmed with the CMDB team lead that the new fields were in fact added to the base table, so thinking what I have is the correct settings, and may have some other odd thing going on there since it seemed to work in PROD.

Thanks for the suggestion, ./andy-b2poYQ==, to see if that would work, but at the moment, I won't be able to finish working that one out since I exceed the field length.  Fun times to be sure!

Appreciate the dialog,

Joe

[Joe Kline]

./andy-b2poYQ==,

Thank you!  I revisited the wrinkle, and agree with you.  I had to increase the string length value of the field on the Rules to allow the number of characters for the table.field notation of adding the _ci to the fairly long custom field name we gave the remediation group.  After doing that, I reapplied the rules and got an assignment.

I appreciate the suggestion!

Thanks again,

Joe