Hi,
A few years ago I overlaid BMC.CORE:xxx forms adding an empty view with a
table field and a few display only fields. Unfortunately it broke during a
later upgrade.
So I guess display only fields are not the same as trim fields...
Best Regards - Misi, RRR AB, http://www.rrr.se (ARSList MVP 2011)
Ask the Remedy Licensing Experts (Best R.O.I. Award at WWRUG10/11/12/13):
* RRR|License - Not enough Remedy licenses? Save money by optimizing.
* RRR|Log - Performance issues or elusive bugs? Analyze your Remedy logs.
Find these products, and many free tools and utilities, at http://rrr.se.
> Everyone,
>
> It is indeed OK to overlay various forms for various reasons.
>
> Let's go through the rules.....
>
> BMC.CORE:xxxx forms
>
> These are the CMDB forms themselves. You can overlay the VUI (the UI layout
> and interaction) of this form and you can overlay the DISPLAY of the fields.
> DO NOT overlay the field definitions themselves. You can overlay the form
> only in the mode of no changes to the form -- a dummy overlay. You could do
> this if you wanted to ADD new custom fields that are trim fields.
>
> So, you are overlaying only the form display/layout. NOTHING else should be
> overlayed or changed. Change other things by changing the definitions through
> the Class Manager.
>
> AST:xxxx forms
>
> These are joins between the CMDB and the AST:Atribute forms. These forms are
> used by the Asset Management system. You can overlay these forms and fields
> and change things as is needed for your environment. You should be careful
> about removing fields on these forms as it would limit functionality within
> Asset Management.
>
> So, you should have full overlay rights on these forms.
>
> WARNING -- the syncUI utility may delete the joins and recreate them. That of
> course would delete any overlays. So, you want to be sure to either not run
> that utility and update any newly added CMDB field on the form yourself or
> export all overlays/custom definitions, run syncUI, and reimport your
> overlay/custom definitions.
>
> Workflow on either
>
> I would be careful about overlaying any workflow on either of these forms.
> You can if it is essential, but any workflow is likely core functionality of
> the corresponding system.
>
> Adding new custom workflow is just fine. Just be sure that it is desired
> capability as you would in any case of adding workflow.
>
> Doug
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kemes, Lisa A DLA CTR INFORMATION
> OPERATIONS
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2015 5:48 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Overlay on AST:BaseElement
>
> We have overlaid AST:BaseElement and nothing has blown up yet. :)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Miller
> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 7:45 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Overlay on AST:BaseElement
>
> **
> I haven't specifically done this but since it is an Asset Management form and
> not a CMDB form you should be fine. That is what they tell me anyways :)
>
> Jason
>
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Hicox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> **
>
> Hi everyone.
>
> Does anyone out there know of good reasons NOT to overlay
> AST:BaseElement?
>
> The short story is that I need to see 'LastScanDate' from
> BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement, along side my asset data.
>
> AST:BaseElement seems like the natural place to do this, since it joins
> AST:Attributes and BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement. All I should need to do is
> create an overlay and bring in 'LastScanDate' from BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement
> ... super easy.
>
> And in fact, I have done this on my dev box, and it SEEMS ok, but then
> I got
> to thinking about it ...
>
> In the past, I made the horrendous mistake of overlaying
> BMC.CORE:BMC_BaseElement, and THAT truely hosed my system on upgrade (even
> though I deleted the overlay prior to upgrading). I'd hate to stumble into
> that sort of minefield again.
>
> A quick search on communities didn't seem to turn up a whole lot, so I
> thought I'd ask here.
>
> Anyone have experience overlaying AST:BaseElement? Did it work out for
> you?
> Cause nightmares?
>
> Thanks eveyone
>
> -Andy
>
>
> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
>
>
> _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers
> Are, and have been for 20 years"
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
> "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org
"Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
