Highlighted
Absent Member.. Absent Member..
Absent Member..
137 views

BSM 9.24 RTSM (uCMDB) Node with multiple IPs changes relationship CI type and fails

Reposted from BSM forums as it was suggested this fourm was more appropriate to the question.

 

Environment is a former HP POC installation that we are now using as a dev platform. So this might be an issue with something HP did for the POC, but not as far as I can tell.

 

I have a BSMC integration to another tool which lists servers/switches/etc and the IPs assigned to them. I've created a custom topology script which uses the IP.setContainer(node) method to create a link between Node and IPs. However in the RTSM I only ever see a single IP contained by any one Node CI created by the integration.

 

After running through debug on BSMC and BSM I found the following entry in the BSM cmdb.reconciliation.log:

 

ID:11b15b996f018fab6f68a3a770a310c5,End1:939eff15f11ddc67b2b5299b8991ea2b,End2:cd260155685d686cea7d28df36d2707f,Type:composition@root_class=composition,display_label=Composition,data_adminstate=0,data_teststate=0,data_source=BSM Connector Policy [7eb41bff-2163-4289-924c-fa9d5914598a],data_operationstate=0,data_allow_auto_discovery=true,data_testisnew=false,data_testcorrstate=0,data_changecorrstate=0,root_enableageing=false,data_changestate=0,data_changeisnew=false,data_operationisnew=false,data_operationcorrstate=0,root_iscandidatefordeletion=false,

I checked the CMDB IDs and confirmed this was one of the Node -> IP CIs the integration should have created a containment relationship for, but this entry shows that it's trying to create a composition relationship instead.

 

In cmdb.reconciliation.data.manipulator.log I found more information showing that it would create only the one containment relationship:

 

Links For Update(size=87)
            ID:$TempLink00142326_YWMGP0512788______,End1:$TempObject197a84b30ffdf776a6be24a581aa5786,End2:$TempObject56e25b43f78ad84ab730e232d0804f26,Type:composition@data_source=BSM Connector Policy [7eb41bff-2163-4289-924c-fa9d5914598a],
            ID:$TempLink00142302_YWMGP0512788______,End1:$TempObjecte6905f8da0963076392a145c4e404a68,End2:$TempObject932f39f37dc5d53d0ad33f2cb242cd7e,Type:composition@data_source=BSM Connector Policy [7eb41bff-2163-4289-924c-fa9d5914598a],
            ID:$TempLink00142324_YWMGP0512788______,End1:$TempObject197a84b30ffdf776a6be24a581aa5786,End2:$TempObject89d7f9b748977b2c1d968fc8a9c71a77,Type:composition@data_source=BSM Connector Policy [7eb41bff-2163-4289-924c-fa9d5914598a],
            ID:$TempLinkbc8c8916ca7b6840f421d8bd81d82278,End1:$TempObject71f34cdd1d7db14bd25b6c7e4f47daa9,End2:$TempObject057d4861c6f9bc42aeaf713e0a6c47f1,Type:containment@data_source=BSM Connector Policy [7eb41bff-2163-4289-924c-fa9d5914598a],root_enableageing=true,

As for the composition links, well these aren't created for the obvious reason listed in odb\error.log:

 

2014-05-13 11:10:01,988 [Process Results Thread-BSM Connector Policy [7eb41bff-2163-4289-924c-fa9d5914598a]] (AbstractModelUpdateAddLinks.java:282) ERROR - Trying to add a link from type: composition between end1: switch and end2: ip_address when there is no valid link in the class model that matches. link: ID:365078210025a6739d40c754bbeb585c,End1:cab4f9b54ae499f36bfd5637c8175e90,End2:d7563c09c34fce6da063a771f1fbc8d2,Type:composition@root_class=composition,display_label=Composition,data_adminstate=0,data_teststate=0,data_source=BSM Connector Policy [7eb41bff-2163-4289-924c-fa9d5914598a],data_operationstate=0,data_allow_auto_discovery=true,data_testisnew=false,data_testcorrstate=0,data_changecorrstate=0,root_enableageing=false,data_changestate=0,data_changeisnew=false,data_operationisnew=false,data_operationcorrstate=0,root_iscandidatefordeletion=false,

I've checked the Enrichment Manager for anything related to IPs, but so far as I can tell there isn't one that can explain this. I would also think Enrichment would change it only after it had been created as a containment link?

 

Can anyone explain to me why the RTSM is doing this?

 

Regards,

Tawno Crookes

0 Likes
4 Replies
Highlighted
Micro Focus Expert
Micro Focus Expert

Re: BSM 9.24 RTSM (uCMDB) Node with multiple IPs changes relationship CI type and fails

Hello Tawno,

Welcome to the uCMDB community forum.

That behaviour is described as none supported data in the class model.
You need to modify your TQL.

 

Best Regards,
Nikola

------------------------
Nikola Todorov
If you find that this or any post resolves your issue, please be sure to mark it as an accepted solution.
0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.. Absent Member..
Absent Member..

Re: BSM 9.24 RTSM (uCMDB) Node with multiple IPs changes relationship CI type and fails

Hi Nikola,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, there is no TQL involved here.

I know composition is not supported in the class model, what I want to find out is why the RTSM is changing the creation of a containment link to the creation of a composition link.

Regards,
Tawno
0 Likes
Highlighted
Micro Focus Expert
Micro Focus Expert

Re: BSM 9.24 RTSM (uCMDB) Node with multiple IPs changes relationship CI type and fails

Hello Tawno,

Supported relationship for connecting CIs to their subjects can be only: Containment and Usage.
That can be confirmed in Effective Modeling for BSM - Best Practices guide.

 

I can read you have BSM 9.24, may ask you if that strange behaviour comes after updating from 9.23?

 

Best Regards,
Nikola

------------------------
Nikola Todorov
If you find that this or any post resolves your issue, please be sure to mark it as an accepted solution.
0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.. Absent Member..
Absent Member..

Re: BSM 9.24 RTSM (uCMDB) Node with multiple IPs changes relationship CI type and fails

Hi Nikola,

 

I don't think you understand the problem, let me try to break it down into it's simplest form for you.

 

I am trying to create a containment relationship.
I am NOT trying to create a composition relationship.
The relationships I am trying to create are being changed from containment to composition.

The relationships are changed BEFORE it is put into the RTSM.
The relationships are not being changed by me or by anything I have configured or set up.


This *appears* to be done by BSM/RTSM. It is clearly wrong to change the relationship type to one that is invalid. I want to know why it is being changed and how to stop it from happening.

 

Tawno

0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.