May be I am missing something here: "if there is more than one filter with the same error message and message number.." - the sql will also get you multiple rows if this is true.
I would think filter logging would be the easiest way to get the offending filter. Atul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe D'Souza" To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Tracking an error by number alone 1441186 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:20:42 -0400 ** With over 7500 filters in the ITSM applications if you got all of them installed, you are going to end up with one large def file to search from, and it would not be pretty if there is more than one filter with the same error message and message number.. Trying to get yourself setup with DB access would make things a lot more easier for you.. Filter logging at the time of reproducing the error may be better than taking a def file while you do not have DB access.. Joe -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Moore, Christopher Allen Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 6:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Tracking an error by number alone 1441186 ** True- I hadn’t thought of that…thanks! I’ll remember that for next time. ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Atul Vohra Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 4:57 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Tracking an error by number alone 1441186 ** You could export the filters from your system. Then you could search for that msgnum in the filter def file. Atul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Moore, Christopher Allen" To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Tracking an error by number alone 1441186 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:17:27 -0500 ** Thanks! I’ve only been here 2 weeks, and I don’t yet have DB access, so I couldn’t look there. That’s a huge help, thank you! Chris ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe D'Souza Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:12 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Tracking an error by number alone 1441186 Message numbers in that range are generally out of the box filters.. In your case the filter name is CHG:CRQ:ValidateChgImp_186 that causes that error. You can find it on your system with 2 simple queries.. select filterid from filter_message where msgnum = 1441186; Once you get the filterid, use that in the second query select name, filterid from filter where filterid = <filterid>; Or you could also run select distinct name, filter.filterid from filter, filter_message where filter.filterid = (select filterid from filter_message where msgnum = 1441186); Joe -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Moore, Christopher Allen Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Tracking an error by number alone 1441186 ** Hey everyone- Before I got here, they had a requirement to hide the change implementer assignment fields in CHG:Infrastructure Change. That was causing problems however when we would try and set people to non-support staff and they had been set as a change implementer in the hidden field- they were assigned tickets and didn’t know it and they had to be reassigned before their People record could change. I un-hid the fields for administrators, but rather than tracking down all the workflow to set and check those fields and turning them off, I created a filter that fired on modify and save to null them out, with an execution order of 600. I made that change last Friday and since almost 200 change tickets have been created and everything worked fine. However today someone was trying to modify a change and was unable to. He got the error “The selected change implementer is invalid. Please reselect the change implementer from the menu and then reapply. ARERR 1441186”. Specifically, he added a work note and hit save. That error is not from workflow I created, and I am trying to find out where it comes from. That number is too high to be from one of the OOTB errors (I think). It seems like it must be an error created in custom work, but the developers who set the system up are not available. I turned off the filter I made and it stopped the problem from occurring, however I cannot reproduce the error in dev and I didn’t get a chance to log it on production. I can’t turn it back on in production- it’s a high availability 24/7 implementation. How can I find the workflow bit where that error comes from based only on that number? Thanks, Chris __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
