That is pretty much what I told my bosses. It is not easy to explain the workings of Remedy to those who do not get into the nuts and bolts per se. the only real option is the write a custom filter to validate the full name to the user ID and pass that behind the scenes but I really don't want to customize AC as there are way too many moving parts in that hooptie already.
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lyle Taylor Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Remedy Inconsistancy ** I griped about this a few years back, too. The answer I got, besides "functions as designed" is that the approval engine is essentially an independent subsystem. While the ITSM suite uses it, it is not, per se, part of the ITSM suite. As such, it doesn't know about how ITSM stores and works with people but uses the User form instead. That leaves it with only being able to really use the least common denominator for people, which is username. Not sayin' I agree... From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tommy Morris Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Remedy Inconsistancy ** I just had to explain to my corporate comptroller and CIO that just because you can add an Approver using that approver's First and Last Name from within a Change ticket, that doesn't mean that you can reassign an approval the same way. I also went ahead and informed the two of them that they cannot create and Alternate Approver record using the alternate's First and Last Name. Why is it that one Approval Central will only recognize login ID? I understand that the Add Approver function on Infrastructure Change uses workflow to find the login ID and pass that to the Approval Engine to correctly build out the new approval. Did the developers of Approval Central not realize that they could have used the same workflow so end-users are not confused by when to use ID vs Name? The least that they could have done is on the reassignment dialog form is have the field label of "Approver ID" instead of "Approver". The same goes for the Alternate Approver form, the label there is "Alternate*". There is no workflow to validate that the data being put in these fields is what the system actually needs. Funny thing about reporting this to support is that the answer is "Working as Designed". Really?!?! Well I knew that it was working as designed, it's not a bug, it's just poor design! Its fine to have Remedy developers/ admins have to figure out how the system works but to push that headache to a UI where true end-users are impacted. _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. _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"
