I did some research on this. Looks like this is configured in the AP:Administration form. See the doc "BMC Remedy Approval Server 7.1 Guide for Users and Administrators" On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:10 PM, pritch <pri...@ptd.net> wrote:
> I also would be interested in where these items are documented within the > wealth of BMC Remedy documentation. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Tavares" <ron.tava...@gmail.com> > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 1:57:53 PM > Subject: Re: Using != and LIKE in Approval Mappings > > ** > Hi Doug, > > thank you for your response. You are correct in your assumptions of what I > am trying to do and I very much like the approach you are recommending. I > believe this will work for us. > > So, I have two questions: > 1) Are these approval rules, (Auto Approval, Self Approval, etc), available > in CM v7.1? > 2) If so, where do I configure this? I'm assuming it is not in Change Mgm > t> Approvals> Approval Mappings > > Thanks, > .ron > > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Mueller, Doug < doug_muel...@bmc.com > > wrote: > > > ** > > Ron, > > I thought I would respond to this message with not really an answer to the > specific question you are asking > but more of a discussion of a general best practice model for using the > approval system. > > > Reading into your question, I am assuming you have a requirement where you > want to run an approval > process but when there is some specific criteria met, you don't want that > process to run. > > > I am going to suggest that you should approach the problem differently. > This different approach has many > advantages: > > -- It is more consistent > -- It is more auditable and trackable (makes things like Sarbox > compliance reviews much easier) > -- It makes the overall flow of execution and processing much easier and > less error prone (one path of > execution not several) > > This approach is a generic philosophy. > > If there is a need for approvals, you ALWAYS call the approval process for > EVERYONE. This is regardless of > whether there are special conditions or limits or it is sometimes needed or > anything. You ALWAYS call > the approval process. > > Then, you use the rules of the approval process to control action and > operation. > > So, let's look at your situation. You have a case where you want to have > approvals but to skip approvals > when the company is not Acme or when some group is specified. I am going > to suggest that you look at it > slightly differently. > > You want approvals. When the company is not Acme or when some specific > group is specified, you want > the approval process to complete immediately with success without > having a person involved. If these > conditions are not met, you want to get explicit approvals. > > The end result is the same, but it is much more managable and trackable to > think in the new terms (and it > is easy to do which is a nice bonus). > > > Within the approval process, there are a variety of rules you can > configure. One type of rule is an > Auto Approval rule. You can have any number of these rules for any > process. This type of rule is the first > type of rule run whenever an approval process starts and if the rule > passes, the approval process is > immediately approved, no individual approvals are needed, and the "done" or > completion rules are run to > update the process to move forward. If none of these rules are > successfully passed, then the approval > process continues on with other rules to assign things and go through the > process until that is approved > (or rejected) and then the completion rules are run. > > So, in your case, you would just have the approval process called and you > would define one or more > Auto Approval rules that test the conditions you want to have the process > automatically approve with no > further action and you will be good to go. > > > Note that there are several other rules that can support you along the way: > > Self Approval rules -- these are rules that run after the Auto approval > rules that are like Auto Approval but > more about including who you are and approving things based on you > or information about you. So, > you might have a Self Approval rule that approves if your personal > signature authority is over the limit of > the request being approved. Auto approval could have been used if > it was approve for ANYONE if the > request was under $10; but it could not have done something based on > who you are. > > Get Authority (or Get Data) rules -- these are rules you can use that > run before the Self Approval rules to > get information you want to use in your later rules test. > Essentially, these are "Set Fields" type > operations that can pull data from other sources than the source > ticket (whose data fields are > available by default and without needing any work). For example, > one might be used to pull the > approval dollar authority limit for the requestor to test to see if > they have authority to self approve their > own request. > > > Anyway, the purpose of this note is not to teach the details of approval > rules, but to set out a > philosophy. Too many times, I hear requests for folks to try and figure > out how I can control whether or not to > call approvals or see how to change things so that approvals are called > only when or .... If you change your > thinking to say if there is a need under any condition for approvals, then > call approvals and put any rules or > restrictions or limitations or automatic approval or whatever within the > Approval process using all the rules and > capabilities of the approval server itself, you will find that you can much > more easily control what you are > trying to accomplish while also simplifying your processes, removing error > conditions in logic, and providing a > much better tracking method to ensure all is going correctly. In > addition, you can get much more > sophisticated about what conditions approve things. And, modification or > adjustment is now just adjusting > approval rules and not reconfiguring workflow. > > > So, my suggestion to solve your problem is to always let approval get > called and put your conditions > (actually the reverse of them because you want conditions that say to auto > approve not ones that say to > call approval) in Auto Approval rules and you will be good to go. > > I hope this helps, > > Doug Mueller > > > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: > arslist@ARSLIST.ORG ] On Behalf Of Ron Tavares > Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 8:13 AM > To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG > Subject: Using != and LIKE in Approval Mappings > > > ** > > > > Hi, > > I think the answer to this is no, but I thought I would ask. Is there any > way to build an advanced qual in a Change Approval Mapping. Meaning, out of > the box: > > For example: > Require Review Approval by Change Mgmt team when Requestor Group 'Company' > != "Acme" > or > > Require Review Approval by Change Mgmt team when Requestor Group > 'Company' LIKE "ABC%" > > ARS 7.1 > CM 7.0 > > Thanks, > .ron _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
