IT Monkey:   Click Here to Help Me Build the Agenda for Upcoming Cireson Webinars!

Cireson ARO Editor - Chances of Setting Relationship for Query Result Prompt

Conner_WoodConner_Wood Customer Advanced IT Monkey ✭✭✭
Right now there is a way to manually alter the xml of a request offering Query Result that has "Add user-selected objects to template object as related items" to target a different relationship instead following a tutorial.

I ask what are the chances of getting the editor capable of doing this for us, is this something Cireson has/ever will consider?


I will now go in-depth regarding what I've managed to understand:

DLL:  Microsoft.EnterpriseManagement.ServiceManager.Applications.ServiceCatalog.Tasks.dll

Class:  Microsoft.EnterpriseManagement.ServiceManager.Applications.ServiceCatalog.Tasks.RequestOffering.ConfigureQuestionPage

This has a event for when the "Configure" button is clicked


 When the configure button is clicked, if the question is mapped to a prompt type of "Query Result", it will generate a window for "Configure Query Results".  In this window at Step 4 for Options, it lacks the ability to specify a relationship for the object(s) to be related to, instead the MP must be manually altered and imported back into SCSM, this is troublesome as doing so either forces an increment of the version number or if removing and importing an MP of the same version, all the request offerings linked to service offerings must be remapped to show the published ROs on the Portal which is extremely time consuming.

 

Options for the program allowing selection of a specified relationship for a query result:

  1. Microsoft - Could potentially alter the Query Results Options as specified in the last email message below.
  2. Cireson - Since it is the MS side of code for that window, Cireson might be better off creating a new section or "WizardStep" much like they have already proven by making  done for "Direct Link" and "Multiple Mapping"

Now code-wise in a perfect world the following would become a reality, but as I stated already it may be wiser for Cireson to do this on another section they fully control after configuring prompt outputs with a special optional relationship override for query result prompts.  The Window I'm talking about can be accessed the following ways:
  1. Create ARO > Configure Prompts > Select Row that is Query Type and click Configure > "4. Options" Tab

  2. Edit ARO > Configure Prompts > Configure > Select Row that is Query Type and click Configure > "4. Options" Tab


It could be done using the target template id that a Request Offering uses.  It is the key to get what relationships to display.
  • Request Offering references TargetTemplateId
  • Templates are stored in the database table == [ServiceManager].[dbo].[ObjectTemplate]
  • Template [ObjectTemplateTypeId] is foreign key and links back to [TypeProjectionId] on [ServiceManager].[dbo].[TypeProjection]
  • Type Projection [TypeProjectionSeed] is the base object class GUID.  (Ex.  "Incident (advanced)" uses the Incident Class as the base object class)
  • It appears the Type Projection stores the list of relationships in xml format in the [ComponentXML] column which surprised me as I expected some sort of Type Projection Relationship Table.

Remember, Perfect world:



And there you have it.......

Again, I ask what are the chances of getting the editor capable of doing this for us, is this something Cireson has/ever will consider?

Best Answer

  • Joe_BurrowsJoe_Burrows Cireson Devops Super IT Monkey ✭✭✭✭✭
    Accepted Answer
    Hi Connor

    Thanks for the detailed example and mock up, agree it looks very helpful.

    We consider anything if there is a big enough demand for a feature \ solution, customer demand is what drives our development backlog.

    Once enough demand is generated @chris_ross and the product team then plan where in the road map the feature will fit and the resources required to get it developed.

    Did you want me to convert this into a feature request for voting?

    Regards
    Joe

Answers

This discussion has been closed.