Harsh,
I agree with Fred & Rick, it makes more sense to rather have it as a property rather than only as some text appended to the name, but you would need to have BMC automate keeping both conventions going to make it backward compatible with existing workflow. Best Regards, Theo From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rick Westbrock Sent: 03 March 2015 18:56 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: The ~! for filter names ** Harsh- You would still have the option of using that naming convention to indicate the phasing but I think it makes more sense to make it a property of the filter rather than relying on the filter name to trigger the phasing. There’s no reason we can’t set the phasing in a filter property and also append `! to the name (or whatever other naming syntax you wish, there might be something else that makes more sense). -Rick From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Harsh Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 7:31 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: The ~! for filter names ** Yes, it is there `! , and i don't think it would be better to remove `!, as a developer i am not at all wishing to open each filter and check if it is overriding the filter phasing. Better i can guess from its name. Regards, Harsh On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Grooms, Frederick W <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: The 2 are not exactly the same. The release pending causes the Phase 2 actions to happen, then comes back to this Filter. The `! causes this filter to run in Phase 1 I put an idea out in the Developer Communities to change needing `! https://communities.bmc.com/ideas/3639 Vote it up ;) Fred -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of Joe D'Souza Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 4:20 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: The ~! for filter names Still there as far as I know as well. They have an additional PROCESS action though that was added somewhere around AR System 6.3 days that mimics that so that the code is not dependant on the name of the Filter. The action is RELEASE-APPLICATION-PENDING. Cheers Joe -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of Mitcham, Ross Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 1:24 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: The ~! for filter names It should still be there, but it is `! not ~! (not sure if this is a typo) Regards, Ross Mitcham Lead Product Developer Direct +1 905.707.3534 <tel:%2B1%20905.707.3534> 50 Minthorn Bvld. Suite 200 Markham, ON L3T 7X8 Canada -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of Ray Gellenbeck Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 1:14 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: The ~! for filter names Was the ~! function deprecated out in 8.x? _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org <http://www.arslist.org> "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years" -- Thanks & regards “Harsh Chaudhary” "Impatience never commanded success" _ARSlist: "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"
