Well, it would actually be trivial to make it unique on a per dataset basis, but I agree that I would not recommend doing something like adding a unique index to force it to be unique.
What we did to try to address the issue was to add a check in workflow when a person was adding a new CI that ensured a CI of the same name did not already exist. The primary reason for this, aside from the normal reason for not wanting to allow non-unique names, was due to the OOB recon rules for the sandbox (in CMDB 2.x). The default rules will match first on CI name, and had the effect that, even though you thought you were creating a new CI, if it matched one that was already there, the system assumed you really wanted to update the existing one and overwrites the old CI info with your new info. That's one of the reasons that we turned off the sandbox. If you really want to pursue not allowing duplicate CI names, your best bet, IMO, is to do it via workflow for actions taken in the GUI. This will help people from entering duplicate CIs, and will avoid breaking integrations which are actually probably more likely to create duplicates in some scenarios... Lyle From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wirasat Siddiqi Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 9:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: CI Name* should Unique in Asset Manag ** I think there are 2 challenges I can see making CI Name Unique, 1. CI Name belongs to BMC Base Element Class and there are possibilities that you may have same CI Name under different classes. 2. It would make Reconciliation job difficult to set precedence between data sets. Thanks, Wirasat On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Charles Baldi <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Oh, I agree that it is a pain and we try to discourage making the CI name unique if we can. Regards, Chuck On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Ramey, Anne <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > We actually did this, put in the filters to require a unique CI Name per Data > Set. It worked, but we ended up taking it out. It just ended up being > troublesome. There are other unique identifiers of the CI and trying to > force a unique CI name caused undo hardship--particularly with discovery > integrations. They match things based on CI Name and/or expect/place > particular things in the CI Name and it couldn't use the values we had > decided to use in that field. > > Hope that made sense, > Anne > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) > [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Charles > Baldi > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 10:50 AM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: CI Name* should Unique in Asset Manag > > The CMDB doesn't use NAME as a unique index because you can have > multiple records for the same CI (with the same name) in different > Data Sets. If you want to prevent a user from entering a duplicate > name then you have to do it in workflow. > > Regards, > Chuck Baldi > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Lammey, Peter A. > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> ** >> >> I agree. The Atrium CMDB application should have made the ID field unique. >> It wouldn't be a true ID of an asset if it was not unique and because this >> was not enforced in the system, we have had a rash of a number of assets >> that were duplicated in the system. >> >> I don't think Name can be unique. Many times you may just want to >> generically give a name to an Asset CI and I should note that this would be >> a problem with the Purchase Module workflow since I believe it will stage >> the initial CI Names for received assets with the Purchase Line Item >> description. >> >> If you setup filters to produce errors when CI Name is already used the >> Receiving workflow from Purchasing would cease to work properly. >> >> Thanks >> Peter Lammey >> ESPN IT Packaging and Automation >> 860-766-4761 >> >> >> >> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) >> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of >> Pierson, Shawn >> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 9:58 AM >> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: CI Name* should Unique in Asset Manag >> >> >> >> ** >> >> I could come up with some quick reasons why it's a bad idea. The most basic >> one is that while unique CI Names would be good from the perspective of >> managing physical assets, it gets tricky when you talk about things like >> software, databases, etc. You could make up a naming convention to populate >> it with, such as Visio 2...@pc123456 to indicate that it's a copy of Visio >> 2007 on PC123456, but why force yourself to do that? >> >> >> >> The Token ID field is good for a unique ID if you need one you can set, >> otherwise there is always the Instance ID if you just need it within Asset >> Management / CMDB. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Shawn Pierson >> >> Remedy Developer | Southern Union >> >> >> >> From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) 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. _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug10 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
