Idea ID: 2827899

SMAX: One condition for multiple rules

Status : Under Consideration
Under Consideration
See status update history
9 months ago

It would be good if there was a possibility to bundle rules and give them a common condition.

We often have the same trigger for many rules, so that by bundling them we save time and errors during creation and also during changes/maintenance. It would also create an overview where you could see at a glance that several rules "belong together".
For example, in a certain phase ten fields should become mandatory, a notification should be sent out and one field should be filled automatically. All twelve rules would have the same condition. If this changes, this has to be adapted to twelve places, hoping that none of them will be forgotten, because it is not possible to see that they are somehow connected.

Tags:

  • Thanks for all the votes and comments. We are looking into this as a future product enhancement. Check the notifications box to be emailed if the status changes.

  • The votes on this idea alone (45) should already be a clear message.

    Adding those of the other two very similar ideas

    • 2758407 (strictly the same as this one) - 16 votes
    • 1644702 (extend all single-field actions to multi-field) - 36 votes

    and you get an impressive total of 97 votes for the concept of being able to control multiple actions via one common condition.

    I do understand that it will probably not be trivial to add such a feature, given the current implementation. I believe the real challenge will be the way to edit such rules, much more than extending the rule execution engine.

    Here are some ideas about how this could be added with minimal changes to the studio rules editor:

    1. Create a LABEL rule and a SKIPTO LABEL rule. These would be simple rules that can be edited like any other. Multiple rules could be inserted between a conditional SKIPTO LABEL and a closing LABEL. While this puts us back to dark ages of programming, I believe it would be straightforward to implement.
      The two rules could also be named ENDIF (instead of LABEL) and IF (instead of SKIPTO), making it look better, although it would technically be just the same.
    2. Create a GROUP rule, like the one that exists in Service Manager Process Designer. While this would clearly be the superior implementation, it will require extensive changes to the Studio process editor (rules would need to be indented within groups)
    3. Allow adding custom rule triggers with a name (along with Before Change and After Change), and add a rule that triggers such a rule chain.
      E.g. Add a custom trigger named "High Priority Incident", with a series of rules setting other field values, making some fields mandatory, etc.
      Then, in an After Change rule, one could simple use a rule to trigger "High Priority Incident" and all those rules would be executed.
      This is obviously the most ambitious approach, but it would allow much more efficient and (most importantly) understandable business logic to be implemented.

    Regards,

    Andre

  • Also bundle this with: /it_ops_mgt/itsm/i/sma-x-ideas/hide-multiple-fields

    As I said in ‎2020-05-13 00:10

    It would be good if there was a possibility to bundle rules and give them a common condition.

    We often have the same trigger for many rules, so that by bundling them we save time and errors during creation and also during changes/maintenance. It would also create an overview where you could see at a glance that several rules "belong together".
    For example, in a certain phase ten fields should become mandatory, a notification should be sent out and one field should be filled automatically. All twelve rules would have the same condition. If this changes, this has to be adapted to twelve places, hoping that none of them will be forgotten, because it is not possible to see that they are somehow connected.

    Product management should probably count all of the votes to see how important this issue really is.

    Regards,

    Ben

     

  • I agree with Andre that this needs to be merged with /it_ops_mgt/itsm/i/sma-x-ideas/ability-to-nest-rulesets

    Ben

  • BTW, this is mostly identical to an older idea posted in January:

    /it_ops_mgt/itsm/i/sma-x-ideas/ability-to-nest-rulesets

    Maybe the two should be merged...