Either way, it's one huge Matzoh ball. I would simply not go there. Of all the customizations people might want, the Status field is the one we should resist the most strongly.
Rick Cook On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Janie Sprenger <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > The form AST:Attributes works in conjunction with AST and CMDB. Field ID > 7 looks like the status field but you'll probably find your Status field on > the AST:Attributes form in 8.1 > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Ray Gellenbeck < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> A client wants to add more Status values to the Asset record form >> (ITSM/ARS 8.1.01). I advised against the "technical debt" such a >> customization would carry, but worse, it appears that the Status field on >> the Asset form doesn't reference a menu, they are using the old Field ID7 >> with manually-entered ordinal values on the form, and the same situation on >> all the supporting sub-forms such as AST:ConfigOutage. >> >> This tells me one of two things, as a custom-builder who avoids chopping >> on ITSM unless my nose is forced in it... >> >> 1. Edits will break workflow, hence there is no customer-friendly way of >> doing it. >> 2. There is a function I'm overlooking somewhere that will make the >> edits to all forms automatically if you use it. >> >> Any answers from the ITSM-savvy crowd? >> >> >> _______________________________________________________________________________ >> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org >> "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years" >> > > _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
