This table is part of the original ITSP or viaTIL product that a lot if ITSM 7 is based on. The idea of having record for each non allowed transition was to allow a customized error message for each incorrect transition. I don't believe you can customize this message any longer but that is why the table was originally designed that way.
Since they are not using the message feature anymore I would love to see them go to the method of only listing valid transitions as it would be easier to trouble shoot, but I imagine there would be a significant coding effort to do this and that is why it has not surfaced as a priority. Richard Brooks General Mills -----Original Message----- From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michiel Beijen Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 1:22 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Status Transitions in ITSM 7 Louise, Actually I ran into the same issue as you did. Today I created an integration with Microsoft Identity Integration Server (MIIS). In this scenario the data from a table in the ARSystem database is exposed to Remedy with a View form. An escalation pushes the data from this view form into CTM:People. (and also lots of cool stuff happens to set up the CTM:PeopleOrganization, Company and Site records...) When I tested this with an active link and the Demo account; everything worked fine. But the escalation of course ran under AR_ESCALATOR; and then I got this pretty message about State Transition records. I ended up, just like you, setting the concerned record to Offline and then I could create records in CTM:People. To me, this seems like it's upside down; you are allowed to create a record in CTM:People (status "" to 1) UNLESS there is a record in SYS:Status Transitions specifying that you're not... It would make more sense if it would be the other way around; you're only allowed to make a certain change if there is a record specifying that you are. ("Blacklisting" versus "Whitelisting". If anybody has a good explanation; I'm listening... ;-) -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards Michiel Beijen ______________________________________________________ MANSOLUTIONS Energieweg 60-62 3771 NA Barneveld The Netherlands Tel. +31-(0)612968592 Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet http://bsm.mansolutions.nl On 9/26/07, E. Louise van Hine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had an interesting issue come up with making a modification to the CM module > in ITSM7 (patch 5.) There is a filter error that comes up which reads and > checks a value from the SYS:Status Transitions form, apparently checking > whether the status transition is "invalid" or valid, however, the value it > checks for is not the invalid flag but rather it sets (triggering the error) > when the status value is set to "Enabled." The only thing that would allow me > to get past the error was setting the status on the Status Transition records > to "Offline". I can't help but wonder whether the workflow was supposed to > check that Valid? flag rather than the status flag, or check both flags before > setting the temp field to trigger the status transition error. > > Has anyone else seen this? Any thoughts on manipulating those Status > Transition > records? > > thanks for any feedback, > > Louise van Hine > KTSL Limited > > ________________________________________________________________________ _______ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" > ________________________________________________________________________ _______ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are" _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org ARSlist:"Where the Answers Are"
