Well, without knowing how long it will take BMC to get an answer back, you might try simply recreating the intent of the workflow already in place. That should get you at least closer to what you need without much risk.
I suspect that the original workflow will function as designed again once the burden of all of those records is no longer an issue. Rick On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Begosh, Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > ** Well there is a known bug with the SYS:Action form that BMC knows about > and there is going to be a fix in the next release which form what they told > me is 7.5 in which records are not being deleted from the SYS:Action form. > Our form had about 800,000 records that should not have been there. There > is more to that though because when we started to try and delete those > records manually we got errors that would not let us delete them so we are > working through that as well. I will let you know what it is when I find > out. BMC said that we can created a escalation in the meantime to delete > those excess records and that is what I am going to do as soon as we figure > out why we cannot delete them. The error is, > > ARERR [102] Name parameter (or name field in a parameter) is empty : > 300427600 > > in case anyone has ever come across that. > > > Kevin Begosh, RSP > > External Initiatives > > System Design & Integration > > 301-791-3540 Phone > > 410-422-3623 Cell > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *strauss > *Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2008 5:52 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: ITSM Application Patch 8 Install Error > > ** > > Now I'm curious, especially since I still have the patch 008 "upgrade" to > look forward to. > > > > So, what records are _*supposed*_ to be retained in SYS:Action? I just > took a look at our production server and there are 5 DLDLOADFOUNDATION > CFG:LoadBusinessTimeHolidays records from when we loaded foundation data > that probably shouldn't be there, and then 5,323 UPDATESLMREASON records > that appear to be every individual action (all different support staff login > names as the Submitters) to provide a reason why an SLM was missed for a > specific Incident. You would think that those would go away after being > posted to the SLA, but that integration was so buggy that there is just no > telling. What kinds of records are sitting in the SYS:Action form on your > server? > > > > Christopher Strauss, Ph.D. > Call Tracking Administration Manager > University of North Texas Computing & IT Center > http://itsm.unt.edu/ > __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > html___ > __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"
