The only reason I can think of why it would be different is if %text% was something "magic" to the interpreter. Like windows trying to expand it as a environment variable, for instance.
Juan Ingles -- On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Guillaume Rheault <[email protected]>wrote: > ** > > I totally agree with you that $SERVER$ LIKE (( "%" + "Server A" ) + "%" > ) should be the same as $SERVER$ LIKE "%Server A%", and I have assumed that > in the past. I guess I should not assume the obvious.... > > -Guillaume > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Lyle > Taylor > Sent: Tue 03/17/09 1:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Anyway to read the ARDBC via workflow?- Resolved > > Perhaps I'm just overly critical. I come from a more hard-core programming > background, so when I see things like this, I see it as poor design and/or > lazy programming. If it's the nature of the beast, that's only because the > beast was made like that, not because of technical limitations that drove > this design. > > If two statements are interpreted the same but don't work the same, that's > a bug in my opinion. The two statements are technically equivalent and > should be treated exactly the same. > > You're philosophy is good, I just get worked up about these kinds of things > in commercial software... > > Lyle > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Mark Lev > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:22 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Anyway to read the ARDBC via workflow?- Resolved > > $SERVER$ LIKE (( "%" + "Server A" ) + "%" ) > > > > doesn't work the same, it is interpreted the same; after internal > processing by the run-time translator which will decipher it to become: > > > > $SERVER$ LIKE "%Server A%" > > > > As I see it: > > There are times the interpreter can read the qual verbatim, and other times > that it needs it to be passed as a build string. I have to do this in table > qualifications when I'm building and passing table quals thru Active Links. > > There are times when you have to put the / in a field identifier to let > Remedy know it's a field identifier vs. a field value. ($/USER$) I think > the situation here is the same, and sometimes Remedy needs it spelt out > differently, under different situations. > > I don't think this is a bug, but the nature of the beast. The interpreter > is a very complex system, and sometimes it has to be done in certain ways in > order to function properly. My philosophy: If option A doesn't work, try > option B. > > Thanks, > Mark > > ________________________________ > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) on behalf of Lyle > Taylor > Sent: Tue 3/17/2009 12:41 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Anyway to read the ARDBC via workflow?- Resolved > > > ** > > Do you mean to say that they intended > > > > $SERVER$ LIKE (( "%" + "Server A" ) + "%" ) > > > > to work and that they intended > > > > $SERVER$ LIKE "%Server A%" > > > > NOT to work? I have a hard time buying that. At the very least, that > would be considered a design flaw, since the two statements are equivalent. > I suppose that a design flaw doesn't necessarily have to be considered a > bug, but to try and go that route for something like this is a stretch and > seems more like a thinly veiled attempt to simply deny that there's a > problem. > > > > Lyle > > > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Meyer, > Jennifer L > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:28 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Anyway to read the ARDBC via workflow?- Resolved > > > > ** > > It does function as designed. > > > > Jennifer Meyer > > ________________________________ > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Lyle Taylor > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:43 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Anyway to read the ARDBC via workflow?- Resolved > > > > That's GOTTA be a bug. That is (or should be) equivalent to > > > > $SERVER$ LIKE "%Server A%" > > > > I'd make them file a defect on that one if I were you. Of course they'll > probably come back and say that it "functions as designed"... > > > > Lyle > > > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Pruitt, > Christopher J > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:20 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Anyway to read the ARDBC via workflow?- Resolved > > > > ** > > > > I got the solution from BMC Remedy Tech Support. Seems like they can do > some good from time to time. The answer is > > > > $SERVER$ LIKE (( "%" + "Server A" ) + "%" ) > > > > Christopher Pruitt > Consultant Specialist > EDS, an HP Company > mailto: [email protected] > > We deliver on our commitments > so you can deliver on yours. > > Confidentiality Notice: This message and any files transmitted with it are > intended for the sole use of the entity or individual to whom it is > addressed, and may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and > exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended > addressee for this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any copying, > distribution, or dissemination of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you > have received this e-mail in error, please immediately destroy, erase, or > discard this message. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail > if you have received this e-mail by mistake. > > > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Scott > Illari > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:56 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Anyway to read the ARDBC via workflow? > > > > ** > > Chris, > > > > Since you are obviously having issues with the $SERVER$ identification > within the escalation, I was wondering if there was something else that you > could use as a qualifier (even if it isn't as clean). Just as a test, you > could modify the qualification for your production server to say $DATE$ > > "1/1/70" (which it will always be) and on your dev server set it up as > $DATE$ < "1/1/70". Obviously, this is ugly and a BAD way to get one to fire > and one not but if you need it done quickly, it will work until you can > debug the $SERVER$ issue. You just need to remember to change the > qualification in your def or xml file prior to migration. > > > > Scott Illari > > 908-601-8948 > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottillari < > http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottillari> > > > > __Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ > > > > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all > copies of the original message. > > __Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > html_____Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > html___ > > __Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" html___ > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > > __Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > html___ > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: RMI Solutions ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
