defect? What is the "Add Related Services" node supposed to do? Doesn't do anything?

[Berto2002]

I'm trying to use this node under the TEST Service:

General Request Automation (hornbill.com) states:

A few nodes in the test flow:

The (test) Request log states it passed through the node:

But nothing happened.

My TEST service has four services listed as related:

I looked in the log and only found this relevant to that node ID:

The node outcome was "success" but it doesn't even place the manual or system timeline updatyes it is supposed to (see first image above):

I was expecting to see one or more Services that related to the TEST service (with the defined type) to be linked in the Request UI as I manually mock-up here:

What was it supposed to do? Is it working? It's not doing that ^^

[James Ainsworth]

This adds an additional related service to the request that can be seen in the Services action. 

 

The Linked Services action may need to be enabled under the request type for the service where you wish to use this.

 

Hope that helps.

 

[Berto2002]

So if that's ticked and it's not working...?

[Martyn Houghton]

@Berto2002

Appears the help text is not fully correct as it still says about updating the Service Status and there is no option to specify the linked service you want to link.

Doing it via the UI there is not option to specify the relationship type either, so I am wondering of this has been cloned from the Add Linked Request node but not completed?

Cheers

Martyn

[James Ainsworth]

@Martyn Houghton, the option to specify the relationship when manually linking a request to another service is here.

 

14 hours ago, Martyn Houghton said:

the help text is not fully correct as it still says about updating the Service Status

Thanks for pointing this out.  I'll ask for this to be updated.

[Berto2002]

@James Ainsworth still not clear what's going on here

This feature is not currently working.

What is the purpose of the node? Is it to add specific named linked services? If no it's missing a field to capture which ones to add. Is it to link to the Request each of the services that are related to the Service under which the Request was raised? If so it's not working.

[James Ainsworth]

Hi @Berto2002

There has been some tests done internally that show it working.  I believe that the problem is more down to the lack of documentation and full explanation of the purpose of this automation. 

From what I understand, this automation is provided to help support workflows on requests that are raised against Technical Services that underpin Business Services.

• A relationship between Technical Services and Business Service can be defined on a Service record.
• The relationship between these types of services have some dependency definitions provided that describe the relationship.
• When a request such as an incident or problem is raised against a Technical Service there is a potential that the issue will affect some of the related Business Services.
• Without having to know or specify what these related business services are, this automation will associate all business services to the request based on a selected dependency level that are associated to the Technical Service under which the request has been raised.

I hope that helps.  I will plan on adding this to our documentation which I hope will provide more clarity.  

[Berto2002]

@James Ainsworth. OK so the key is if there's a Business and Technical Service. I altered my TEST Service to be a Technical Service and the node worked to link two Business Services.

A few points here:

1. There is no need to have this restriction; there are many cases when two Business Services or two Technical Services can and should be dependent. I would like this restriction either removed or an option to over-ride in the node. Current design makes this a very niche feature
2. Yes, with such a subtle nuance you do need to update that documentation and please include whether it works both ways (i.e. Request raised as a Business Service it finds Technical Services as well as the other way around; it should!)
3. Request that another Outcome Param be defined to list the Linked Services a bit like the one we have for Assets; so we can use it in diags and timeline updates and add to emails and custom fields. in the case of the scope being widened as per 1 above, then the two outcomes should be to list Business and Technical dependencies separately

Thanks,

Rob

[Berto2002]

@James Ainsworth 

I have some some testing and this is the outcome. I am not sure it is working as expected.

In my test service (technical), I have linked four services, one with each type of dependency:

1) case with "request service depends on related". Outcome: this linked the Arbitras Service (test depends on it) and the ArcGIS service (mutually dependent). UNEXPECTED. Expected only Arbitras

2) case with "related and request service depend on each other". Outcome: this linked Arbitras, ArcGIS, Account Managment User. WRONG. Expected only ArcGIS

3) case with "related depends on request service". Outcome: this linked Account Management and ArcGIS. UNEXPECTED. Expected only Account Management (User)

Summary:

a) the result from cases 1 & 3 I believe is misleading. These outcomes should only be finding where the relationship is one way. I can see the possibility it was interpreted that a mutually dependent service is also dependent

b) the result from case 2 I believe is incorrect. The term "related and request service depend on each other" case should not have the same inclusion logic since it is a unique case of (only) "mutual dependency only"

I would be interested in your comments.

Also any chance of allowing us to link technical to technical and business to business?

Thanks, Rob

[James Ainsworth]

Hi @Berto2002,

I'll do my best to have a look.  If you feel that there is a defect, it might be worth reporting to Hornbill Support.

You may also want to look at this new Hornbill Automation for linking an individual service.