Asset(s) to User relationship differs between LIVE and TEST instance

[Izu]

Some users are linked to more assets or one asset multiple times in the LIVE instance as compared to the TEST instance. The assets uploaded to the LIVE and TEST instance were retrieved from the same source database.

It is essential that the two instances reflect information that is similar and is up-to-date.

[Victor]

@Izu - just to clarify a few things:

1 hour ago, Izu said:

Some users are linked to ... one asset multiple times

As far as Hornbill is concerned is not the same asset, it is a different asset. As I explained on the support request you raised for this, just because the assets have the same name does not mean, again, as far as Hornbill is concerned, that is the same asset. The asset name is not unique in Hornbill therefore, technically speaking, two assets can have the same name. In Hornbill all these assets have different IDs therefore they are different assets.

1 hour ago, Izu said:

Some users are linked to more assets ... in the LIVE instance as compared to the TEST instance

Without any more information this does not constitute an issue. I can say with certainty that your TEST instance does not mirror the LIVE instance in terms of data, is not supposed to, that's not what a TEST instance is meant for. Regardless of this, because your TEST instance does not mirror your LIVE instance in terms of data, differences will always exist hence the fact that "some users are linked to more assets in LIVE vs. TEST" is not an issue, not in the way you are presenting it.

1 hour ago, Izu said:

The assets uploaded to the LIVE and TEST instance were retrieved from the same source database.

It does not matter if the assets were retrieved from the same source, because the initial asset data in your both instances, prior to import, is not the same, the result after the import will also not be the same. The asset import tool is designed to, as the name says, import. The asset import tool is not designed to maintain assets, we have functionality in Hornbill designed for this purpose, which is "Asset Management" (part of Service Manager application)

1 hour ago, Izu said:

It is essential that the two instances reflect information that is similar and is up-to-date.

I appreciate the what you are saying but I am not entirely sure what is expected from Hornbill anyone else here for that matter? Maintaining the data in a customer instance (or across multiple owned instances) is customer's responsibility, not anyone else's. Hornbill can only assist if the tool used to maintain the data (this includes Hornbill itself and any other external tools that we provide) does not perform the designed/intended function, which I don't see being the case here.

With the above in mind, perhaps you could clarify what sort of assistance you are looking after here?