Highlighted
Absent Member.. Absent Member..
Absent Member..
587 views

CI identification issue

Hello,

I'm having an issue with a custom CI that is based on business_application. As per the original identification rule, the CI is supposed to duplicate instead of merge when " Two BusinessApplication instances are considered to be different if they are owned by different Party objects", which is also reflected in the ident rule itself:

                <connected-ci-condition ciType="party" linkType="ownership" isDirectionForward="false" conditionType="approveAndContradict">
                    <overlap-fixed-operator number-of-matches="1"/>

I've modified my own CIT (influx_service) to look at not party, but influx_cluster (also a custom CI based on application_system CIT):

                <connected-ci-condition ciType="influx_cluster" linkType="dependency" isDirectionForward="false" conditionType="approveAndContradict">
                    <overlap-fixed-operator number-of-matches="1"/>

Other parts of the rule are identical to the factory rule of business_application, you'll notice that I only changed the CI and link type. Given this, I believe that 2 similar influx_service CI's should duplicate/separate when they have different influx_cluster objects connected to them via dependency. I'm attaching a screenshot showing this is not what happens. The unix node highlighted with a red circle is a standalone deployment of this application and creates a different influx_cluster CI called INFLUX STANDALONE, meaning that based on the ident rule, KAPACITOR and INFLUXDB should be duplicated - STANDALONE and CLUSTER should have their own set of KAPACITOR & INFLUXDB.
I'm guessing the problem is in the rule itself, although it's copied from a factory rule. Can anyone point out what I've done wrong here?

0 Likes
5 Replies
Highlighted
Honored Contributor.. Honored Contributor..
Honored Contributor..

Re: CI identification issue

Could you post your entire Identification for this CIT? Just to ensure we're talking about the same thing.

0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.. Absent Member..
Absent Member..

Re: CI identification issue

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<identification-config type="influx_service" description="A BusinessApplication is identified by its name. Two BusinessApplication instances are considered to be different if they are owned by different Party objects, or if they have different Application ID. ">
    <identification-criteria>
        <identification-criterion>
            <attribute-condition attributeName="name" includeNullValue="false" conditionType="approveAndContradict"/>
        </identification-criterion>
    </identification-criteria>
    <match>
        <verification-criteria>
            <verification-criterion>
                <connected-ci-condition ciType="influx_cluster" linkType="dependency" isDirectionForward="false" conditionType="approveAndContradict">
                    <overlap-fixed-operator number-of-matches="1"/>
                </connected-ci-condition>
            </verification-criterion>
            <verification-criterion>
                <attribute-condition attributeName="app_id" includeNullValue="false" conditionType="approveAndContradict"/>
            </verification-criterion>
        </verification-criteria>
    </match>
</identification-config>
0 Likes
Highlighted
Honored Contributor.. Honored Contributor..
Honored Contributor..

Re: CI identification issue

Can you check the output from the cmdb.reconciliation.merged.log? It should state why it is merging them.

0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.. Absent Member..
Absent Member..

Re: CI identification issue

I tried searching for KAPACITOR with both the name and it's global ID from merged.log - there's nothing in the log about this. PS! Logs are configured to debug.

0 Likes
Highlighted
Honored Contributor.. Honored Contributor..
Honored Contributor..

Re: CI identification issue

That's surprizing, if they are merging. IS there anything on this import in the other reconciliation logs? Can you run a validation where the only thing coming into the system is this data, and then grab the relevant time section of all recon logs? There must be information on this somewhere...

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.