Community in read only mode June 18 & 19
This community will be set in READ ONLY mode for a while on Tuesday June 18 into Wednesday June 19 while we import content and users from our Micro Focus Forums community site. MORE INFORMATION
Established Member.. Cliff Cottam
Established Member..

Limits of logical name and is there a better work around?

Logical Name is the primary key field for devices. In the Out-of-the box Service Manager, it is used in all ticket type (interaction, incident, change, task, problem) to relate the ticket to the device. Our environment is different.


We have needs, on a very regular basis, to re-use the identifier of a device. For example, we are replacing a web server with a new device. The internal and external links to that device all point to the specific device. If we re-use the logical name, we have an inaccurate history for the device. If we insist on a unique logical name, there is significant extra work for us or others.


To get around this, we have a second, unique field (called term id) that users know. We hide the logical name completely.  While we do not encourage re-use of the term id, we do allow it. This, of course, has its own problems. If you search for the incident history though incident management based upon a term id, you may be looking at multiple iterations of the device. If you search for the incident history from the device record it will use the logical name and produce only the current device.


Additionally, relationships are based upon logical names, not term ids. Users must now know both and when to use which one to get the best out of Service Manager.


Are there better ways to accomplish this?

1 Reply
Micro Focus Expert
Micro Focus Expert

Re: Limits of logical name and is there a better work around?

Hi Cliff,


Thanks for your mail. This is identified as a priority item in our roadmap, so let me try to give you a perspective of what we plan to do and how to address it.

The problem you are raising and that is known in the SM community under the "" issue is now well identifed and is the single biggest priority of our next SM version. We are actively working on it and have initiated a design partnership.

In the mean time, the workarounds we have implemented are based on a naming convention that ensures uniqueness of the logical name, which I realize is not always optimal.

Product Management Director, Service and Configuration Management
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.