gbmthomson Absent Member.
Absent Member.
1804 views

Another File Exists issue.

We have a mixed environment currently authenticating to E-Dir and AD. We have applications within ZCM we migrating from ZfD that have file existance requirments for a file on the users home drive (F:\). The homes drive is on a windows (AD) share. What we're seeing is that the application will display when the user logs in if the file existance is set to a file on the local C: drive of the users PC. If we set the file existance to the F drive the application will only display after a launcher refresh. Removing the refresh delay is NOT an option.

The apps have been working fine in ZfD!!

I've checked the provider order on the boxes and tried changing it. Makes no difference. I've also checked to ensure the users F drive is definately mapped before the launcher starts and it is. Seems very strange and is causing us a lot of greif. Any ideas?:confused:
Labels (2)
0 Likes
10 Replies
shaunpond Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Another File Exists issue.

Gbmthomson,

I'm checking on this, I confirm what you see, I'm trying to see if we
have an existing bug for it...

--

Shaun Pond


0 Likes
Micro Focus Expert
Micro Focus Expert

Re: Another File Exists issue.

This would seem to be working as I would expect, but should be easily
resolvable via System Requirement Tweak on the Bundle.

The System Requirement Evaluations occur very early in the logon process
by the ZENworksUserDaemon.exe. Not by NAL as in ZDM7.

Mapped Drives will generally happen after the evaluations.
There is not any hook in ZCM to monitor for the Novell Login Script
thread to tell it to then start evaluating, but even if there was the
increased delays are likely less than desirable.

My recommendation is to use "Action Level" system requirements instead
of Bundle Requirements.

"Action Level" requirements are evaluated at Run-Time.

For your Current Action: Create a Requirement for the Existence of the
File on F:

Optionally: Add a Requirement that brings up a Message Box saying the F:
File needs to be created/added that has an action level requirement of
the file not there.

This would also increase logon times by a very very small amount.
However, increased use of Action Level Requirements over System
Requirements on a large number of bundles may add up, especially if
there are a very significant number of evaluations that are removed at
startup.

On 7/11/2011 3:51 AM, Shaun Pond wrote:
> Gbmthomson,
>
> I'm checking on this, I confirm what you see, I'm trying to see if we
> have an existing bug for it...
>



--
Craig Wilson - MCNE, MCSE, CCNA
Novell Knowledge Partner

Novell does not officially monitor these forums.

Suggestions/Opinions/Statements made by me are solely my own.
These thoughts may not be shared by either Novell or any rational human.
0 Likes
gbmthomson Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Another File Exists issue.

Hi Craig,

Why is it that if right click the ZCM icon in the taskbar and select "Show Properties" then look at the bundles, the bundle in questions system requirments are all met?:confused: This kind of suggests that the evaluation of requirments has already taken place and been met but for some reason the icon still doesn't show?

Is there no other way to get this working other than show the icon then tell the users the conditions have not been met?

G.
0 Likes
shaunpond Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Another File Exists issue.

Gbmthomson,

it appears to me to be a timing issue, it's as if it doesn't pass the
test, but by the time you come to look at the properties, it passes...

--

Shaun Pond


0 Likes
gbmthomson Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Another File Exists issue.

spond;2120352 wrote:
Gbmthomson,

it appears to me to be a timing issue, it's as if it doesn't pass the
test, but by the time you come to look at the properties, it passes...

--

Shaun Pond


I'm checking literally as soon as the NAL's up. To be honest if this doesn't work, it's going to be a big problem for us.

I can understand that what craig's put in his response would work, however as a rule we don't provide NAL icons to our users that "don't work" if the application doesn't meet it's requirments, we simple don't display it at all. I know you'll hear this a lot, but it worked in ZfD and that's what we're migrating from so we were hoping for the same or better functionality.
0 Likes
Micro Focus Expert
Micro Focus Expert

Re: Another File Exists issue.

The key thing to remember is that the products operate completely different.

There are many things you can do in ZCM you can't in ZDM.
I'm not sure why it says passes, but I suspect any attempt to use
System Requirements for Mapped Drives will always be flaky since those
evaluations take place completely independent of the Login Script processor.

Perhaps calling a "Zac Ref" at the end of the Login Script would help.
Or Create a Bundle that does ZAC ref, but precede it with a delay action
of 1-2 minutes.


One possible way to try and fix the "Timing" issue is to permanently map
the User's "F:" Drive. This will map much sooner and perhaps soon
enough. This resolved a policy issue for a customer who was trying to
redirect their Desktop to a mapped drive letter. (I did some trickery
so the permanent drive mapping always auto-updated in the event the home
dir ever moved, but otherwise was left untouched.)

The user of Variables to reference a UNC path may even be better.
Something like "HomePath", but w/o seeing how your variables are being
set in your case I can't be too detailed.



On 7/11/2011 11:06 AM, gbmthomson wrote:
>
> spond;2120352 Wrote:
>> Gbmthomson,
>>
>> it appears to me to be a timing issue, it's as if it doesn't pass the
>> test, but by the time you come to look at the properties, it passes...
>>
>> --
>>
>> Shaun Pond

>
> I'm checking literally as soon as the NAL's up. To be honest if this
> doesn't work, it's going to be a big problem for us.
>
> I can understand that what craig's put in his response would work,
> however as a rule we don't provide NAL icons to our users that "don't
> work" if the application doesn't meet it's requirments, we simple don't
> display it at all. I know you'll hear this a lot, but it worked in ZfD
> and that's what we're migrating from so we were hoping for the same or
> better functionality.
>
>



--
Craig Wilson - MCNE, MCSE, CCNA
Novell Knowledge Partner

Novell does not officially monitor these forums.

Suggestions/Opinions/Statements made by me are solely my own.
These thoughts may not be shared by either Novell or any rational human.
0 Likes
Micro Focus Expert
Micro Focus Expert

Re: Another File Exists issue.

I think I may understand the "Available" issue.

Being "Available" simply means the Bundle is assigned to the device/user
and passes the availability schedule. I believe it may also make sure
that a content server is available for the bundle if necessary, but less
sure about that. It does not indicate that it passed the system
requirement checks.

The "Effective" checkbox indicates whether it has met the system
requirements. It must be both available and effective.


On 7/11/2011 12:34 PM, craig wilson wrote:
> The key thing to remember is that the products operate completely
> different.
>
> There are many things you can do in ZCM you can't in ZDM.
> I'm not sure why it says passes, but I suspect any attempt to use
> System Requirements for Mapped Drives will always be flaky since those
> evaluations take place completely independent of the Login Script
> processor.
>
> Perhaps calling a "Zac Ref" at the end of the Login Script would help.
> Or Create a Bundle that does ZAC ref, but precede it with a delay action
> of 1-2 minutes.
>
>
> One possible way to try and fix the "Timing" issue is to permanently map
> the User's "F:" Drive. This will map much sooner and perhaps soon
> enough. This resolved a policy issue for a customer who was trying to
> redirect their Desktop to a mapped drive letter. (I did some trickery so
> the permanent drive mapping always auto-updated in the event the home
> dir ever moved, but otherwise was left untouched.)
>
> The user of Variables to reference a UNC path may even be better.
> Something like "HomePath", but w/o seeing how your variables are being
> set in your case I can't be too detailed.
>
>
>
> On 7/11/2011 11:06 AM, gbmthomson wrote:
>>
>> spond;2120352 Wrote:
>>> Gbmthomson,
>>>
>>> it appears to me to be a timing issue, it's as if it doesn't pass the
>>> test, but by the time you come to look at the properties, it passes...
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Shaun Pond

>>
>> I'm checking literally as soon as the NAL's up. To be honest if this
>> doesn't work, it's going to be a big problem for us.
>>
>> I can understand that what craig's put in his response would work,
>> however as a rule we don't provide NAL icons to our users that "don't
>> work" if the application doesn't meet it's requirments, we simple don't
>> display it at all. I know you'll hear this a lot, but it worked in ZfD
>> and that's what we're migrating from so we were hoping for the same or
>> better functionality.
>>
>>

>
>



--
Craig Wilson - MCNE, MCSE, CCNA
Novell Knowledge Partner

Novell does not officially monitor these forums.

Suggestions/Opinions/Statements made by me are solely my own.
These thoughts may not be shared by either Novell or any rational human.
0 Likes
gbmthomson Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Another File Exists issue.

Hi Craig,

Thanks for your responses.

So you know, the object is showing as availalbe and effective but still doen't show.

I've also tried using %HOMESHARE% in the patch for the requirments of the object but there are still issues.

Can you suggest a way to log the logon events so we can see if the network path is mapped prior to the ZCM processes kicking off?

G.


craig_wilson;2120445 wrote:
I think I may understand the "Available" issue.

Being "Available" simply means the Bundle is assigned to the device/user
and passes the availability schedule. I believe it may also make sure
that a content server is available for the bundle if necessary, but less
sure about that. It does not indicate that it passed the system
requirement checks.

The "Effective" checkbox indicates whether it has met the system
requirements. It must be both available and effective.


On 7/11/2011 12:34 PM, craig wilson wrote:
> The key thing to remember is that the products operate completely
> different.
>
> There are many things you can do in ZCM you can't in ZDM.
> I'm not sure why it says passes, but I suspect any attempt to use
> System Requirements for Mapped Drives will always be flaky since those
> evaluations take place completely independent of the Login Script
> processor.
>
> Perhaps calling a "Zac Ref" at the end of the Login Script would help.
> Or Create a Bundle that does ZAC ref, but precede it with a delay action
> of 1-2 minutes.
>
>
> One possible way to try and fix the "Timing" issue is to permanently map
> the User's "F:" Drive. This will map much sooner and perhaps soon
> enough. This resolved a policy issue for a customer who was trying to
> redirect their Desktop to a mapped drive letter. (I did some trickery so
> the permanent drive mapping always auto-updated in the event the home
> dir ever moved, but otherwise was left untouched.)
>
> The user of Variables to reference a UNC path may even be better.
> Something like "HomePath", but w/o seeing how your variables are being
> set in your case I can't be too detailed.
>
>
>
> On 7/11/2011 11:06 AM, gbmthomson wrote:
>>
>> spond;2120352 Wrote:
>>> Gbmthomson,
>>>
>>> it appears to me to be a timing issue, it's as if it doesn't pass the
>>> test, but by the time you come to look at the properties, it passes...
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Shaun Pond

>>
>> I'm checking literally as soon as the NAL's up. To be honest if this
>> doesn't work, it's going to be a big problem for us.
>>
>> I can understand that what craig's put in his response would work,
>> however as a rule we don't provide NAL icons to our users that "don't
>> work" if the application doesn't meet it's requirments, we simple don't
>> display it at all. I know you'll hear this a lot, but it worked in ZfD
>> and that's what we're migrating from so we were hoping for the same or
>> better functionality.
>>
>>

>
>



--
Craig Wilson - MCNE, MCSE, CCNA
Novell Knowledge Partner

Novell does not officially monitor these forums.

Suggestions/Opinions/Statements made by me are solely my own.
These thoughts may not be shared by either Novell or any rational human.
0 Likes
Micro Focus Expert
Micro Focus Expert

Re: Another File Exists issue.

If it shows effective but is not there, then something is amiss.
An SR may help with that if there is a bug.

If the file is missing, the bundle should indicate a failed system
requirement and show the file is missing.

If its not saying the file is missing, there is a bug.
Even if fixing the bug simply makes the bundle show failed system
requirements.



On 7/12/2011 7:06 AM, gbmthomson wrote:
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> Thanks for your responses.
>
> So you know, the object is showing as availalbe and effective but still
> doen't show.
>
> I've also tried using %HOMESHARE% in the patch for the requirments of
> the object but there are still issues.
>
> Can you suggest a way to log the logon events so we can see if the
> network path is mapped prior to the ZCM processes kicking off?
>
> G.
>
>
> craig_wilson;2120445 Wrote:
>> I think I may understand the "Available" issue.
>>
>> Being "Available" simply means the Bundle is assigned to the
>> device/user
>> and passes the availability schedule. I believe it may also make sure
>> that a content server is available for the bundle if necessary, but
>> less
>> sure about that. It does not indicate that it passed the system
>> requirement checks.
>>
>> The "Effective" checkbox indicates whether it has met the system
>> requirements. It must be both available and effective.
>>
>>
>> On 7/11/2011 12:34 PM, craig wilson wrote:
>>> The key thing to remember is that the products operate completely
>>> different.
>>>
>>> There are many things you can do in ZCM you can't in ZDM.
>>> I'm not sure why it says passes, but I suspect any attempt to use
>>> System Requirements for Mapped Drives will always be flaky since

>> those
>>> evaluations take place completely independent of the Login Script
>>> processor.
>>>
>>> Perhaps calling a "Zac Ref" at the end of the Login Script would

>> help.
>>> Or Create a Bundle that does ZAC ref, but precede it with a delay

>> action
>>> of 1-2 minutes.
>>>
>>>
>>> One possible way to try and fix the "Timing" issue is to permanently

>> map
>>> the User's "F:" Drive. This will map much sooner and perhaps soon
>>> enough. This resolved a policy issue for a customer who was trying

>> to
>>> redirect their Desktop to a mapped drive letter. (I did some trickery

>> so
>>> the permanent drive mapping always auto-updated in the event the

>> home
>>> dir ever moved, but otherwise was left untouched.)
>>>
>>> The user of Variables to reference a UNC path may even be better.
>>> Something like "HomePath", but w/o seeing how your variables are

>> being
>>> set in your case I can't be too detailed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/11/2011 11:06 AM, gbmthomson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> spond;2120352 Wrote:
>>>>> Gbmthomson,
>>>>>
>>>>> it appears to me to be a timing issue, it's as if it doesn't pass

>> the
>>>>> test, but by the time you come to look at the properties, it

>> passes...
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Shaun Pond
>>>>
>>>> I'm checking literally as soon as the NAL's up. To be honest if

>> this
>>>> doesn't work, it's going to be a big problem for us.
>>>>
>>>> I can understand that what craig's put in his response would work,
>>>> however as a rule we don't provide NAL icons to our users that

>> "don't
>>>> work" if the application doesn't meet it's requirments, we simple

>> don't
>>>> display it at all. I know you'll hear this a lot, but it worked in

>> ZfD
>>>> and that's what we're migrating from so we were hoping for the same

>> or
>>>> better functionality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>
>> --
>> Craig Wilson - MCNE, MCSE, CCNA
>> Novell Knowledge Partner
>>
>> Novell does not officially monitor these forums.
>>
>> Suggestions/Opinions/Statements made by me are solely my own.
>> These thoughts may not be shared by either Novell or any rational
>> human.

>
>



--
Craig Wilson - MCNE, MCSE, CCNA
Novell Knowledge Partner

Novell does not officially monitor these forums.

Suggestions/Opinions/Statements made by me are solely my own.
These thoughts may not be shared by either Novell or any rational human.
0 Likes
Micro Focus Expert
Micro Focus Expert

Re: Another File Exists issue.

I don't have the Cycles to look at this but an idea crossed my mind.

From a couple customers, I do know that Drives Map "AFTER" ZCM Policies
run.

This is from a customer redirecting "Desktop" to H:
They would get a message H: was missing, they click OK, and then after a
few seconds the desktop starts working when H: kicks in.

This is the customer where I did some Permanent Drive mapping trickery
via a VBS script called from the logon script that ensured the local
permanent drive was correct and only updated it if it was missing or
wrong due to a moved home drive.

If u looked at the agent logs when set to debug, create an app that you
know should fail and as well as a policy that should fail system
requirements and check to see when each are evaluated.

For the Login Script, set it to "Not Close" and issue a command to echo
the current time down to the second to the login script window.


On 7/12/2011 7:12 AM, craig wilson wrote:
> If it shows effective but is not there, then something is amiss.
> An SR may help with that if there is a bug.
>
> If the file is missing, the bundle should indicate a failed system
> requirement and show the file is missing.
>
> If its not saying the file is missing, there is a bug.
> Even if fixing the bug simply makes the bundle show failed system
> requirements.
>
>
>
> On 7/12/2011 7:06 AM, gbmthomson wrote:
>>
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>> Thanks for your responses.
>>
>> So you know, the object is showing as availalbe and effective but still
>> doen't show.
>>
>> I've also tried using %HOMESHARE% in the patch for the requirments of
>> the object but there are still issues.
>>
>> Can you suggest a way to log the logon events so we can see if the
>> network path is mapped prior to the ZCM processes kicking off?
>>
>> G.
>>
>>
>> craig_wilson;2120445 Wrote:
>>> I think I may understand the "Available" issue.
>>>
>>> Being "Available" simply means the Bundle is assigned to the
>>> device/user
>>> and passes the availability schedule. I believe it may also make sure
>>> that a content server is available for the bundle if necessary, but
>>> less
>>> sure about that. It does not indicate that it passed the system
>>> requirement checks.
>>>
>>> The "Effective" checkbox indicates whether it has met the system
>>> requirements. It must be both available and effective.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/11/2011 12:34 PM, craig wilson wrote:
>>>> The key thing to remember is that the products operate completely
>>>> different.
>>>>
>>>> There are many things you can do in ZCM you can't in ZDM.
>>>> I'm not sure why it says passes, but I suspect any attempt to use
>>>> System Requirements for Mapped Drives will always be flaky since
>>> those
>>>> evaluations take place completely independent of the Login Script
>>>> processor.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps calling a "Zac Ref" at the end of the Login Script would
>>> help.
>>>> Or Create a Bundle that does ZAC ref, but precede it with a delay
>>> action
>>>> of 1-2 minutes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One possible way to try and fix the "Timing" issue is to permanently
>>> map
>>>> the User's "F:" Drive. This will map much sooner and perhaps soon
>>>> enough. This resolved a policy issue for a customer who was trying
>>> to
>>>> redirect their Desktop to a mapped drive letter. (I did some trickery
>>> so
>>>> the permanent drive mapping always auto-updated in the event the
>>> home
>>>> dir ever moved, but otherwise was left untouched.)
>>>>
>>>> The user of Variables to reference a UNC path may even be better.
>>>> Something like "HomePath", but w/o seeing how your variables are
>>> being
>>>> set in your case I can't be too detailed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/11/2011 11:06 AM, gbmthomson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> spond;2120352 Wrote:
>>>>>> Gbmthomson,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it appears to me to be a timing issue, it's as if it doesn't pass
>>> the
>>>>>> test, but by the time you come to look at the properties, it
>>> passes...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shaun Pond
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm checking literally as soon as the NAL's up. To be honest if
>>> this
>>>>> doesn't work, it's going to be a big problem for us.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can understand that what craig's put in his response would work,
>>>>> however as a rule we don't provide NAL icons to our users that
>>> "don't
>>>>> work" if the application doesn't meet it's requirments, we simple
>>> don't
>>>>> display it at all. I know you'll hear this a lot, but it worked in
>>> ZfD
>>>>> and that's what we're migrating from so we were hoping for the same
>>> or
>>>>> better functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Craig Wilson - MCNE, MCSE, CCNA
>>> Novell Knowledge Partner
>>>
>>> Novell does not officially monitor these forums.
>>>
>>> Suggestions/Opinions/Statements made by me are solely my own.
>>> These thoughts may not be shared by either Novell or any rational
>>> human.

>>
>>

>
>



--
Craig Wilson - MCNE, MCSE, CCNA
Novell Knowledge Partner

Novell does not officially monitor these forums.

Suggestions/Opinions/Statements made by me are solely my own.
These thoughts may not be shared by either Novell or any rational human.
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.