A new Flexera Community experience is coming on November 18th, click here for more information.
Hello, I have a question about the "Linked Asset" field in an inventory record. Before getting into my question I would like to note that we have the following setting, marked in yellow, unchecked, but that our environment acts as if it is checked. This is a bug according to Flexera support and it is being handled in a case:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is in my understanding that device records in "All Inventory" and asset records in "All Assets" can be linked when they have the same serial number. When I click the name hyperlink in "All Inventory" it directs me to the device record. If I click the linked asset hyperlink in "All Inventory" it directs me to the asset that belongs with it. This seems to work as expected:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the picture below we see a different case where there seems to be no linked asset. But when I open the device, the field linked asset is populated where it says via host (xxxxx004).
Question 1: this behaviour should occur when the setting mentioned at the start of this post, is checked. Is that assumption correct?
Question 2: should the via host hyperlink not send me to the asset directly, instead of first directing me to the host device and from there on to the host asset?
Question 3: When you look at the all inventory page you will see that the linked asset field is blank. I assume that this means that the device mvp-tst2 does not have an asset linked to it. Is that assumption correct?
Question 4: why is the field linked asset used for showing via host? It seems to me that it only tells the user that a potential asset can be found somewhere in the host device. But looking at question 3, there is no actual hard asset link I assume. This seems ambiguous and I am wondering why Flexera has choosen this field to show this information.
Thanks in advance
‎Sep 27, 2024 03:28 AM
I don't have any particular insight into why it was done that way, and that might be unanswerable at this point. My guess is that when the team that implemented this aspect of the data model and UI 10+ years ago were thinking about it, this approach made the most sense to them.
Even if you find it somewhat confusing, I hope the description I've given at least helps to clarify what you're seeing.
‎Sep 30, 2024 07:29 AM
For reference, here is a link to the relevant known issue record that you are alluding to: IOJ-2101817: Disabling the 'Link virtual machine to the same asset as VM host' System Setting has no effect
Here are some comments in relation to the particular questions being raised here.
Question 1: this behaviour should occur when the setting mentioned at the start of this post, is checked. Is that assumption correct?
Yes, the type of details shown in the 2nd image in your post should be seen when the "Link virtual machine to the same asset as VM host" setting is checked.
The "Linked asset ... via host (<hostname>)" should not be shown when the setting is unchecked. However due to the known issue, you may still see this.
Question 2: should the via host hyperlink not send me to the asset directly, instead of first directing me to the host device and from there on to the host asset?
No, that is not how the UI is implemented. The link goes to the host inventory device record in this instance. To get to the asset record itself you first have to go to the host inventory device.
Question 3: When you look at the all inventory page you will see that the linked asset field is blank. I assume that this means that the device mvp-tst2 does not have an asset linked to it. Is that assumption correct?
That is correct. The way the data model works is to link the host inventory device record to the asset record, while the individual virtual machine inventory device records nominally "inherit" that link. The link is not directly shown for the virtual machine records on the All Inventory page (or other grids where the virtual machine inventory device records may be listed).
Question 4: why is the field linked asset used for showing via host? It seems to me that it only tells the user that a potential asset can be found somewhere in the host device. But looking at question 3, there is no actual hard asset link I assume. This seems ambiguous and I am wondering why Flexera has choosen this field to show this information.
I'm not sure I fully follow the nuances of what you're asking here. This reflects how the relationships work in the data model: as above, the host inventory device record is the record that actually gets linked to the asset, while the individual virtual machine inventory device records nominally "inherit" the link through the host record. So I guess when this aspect of user experience was designed (many years ago now) it was implemented to reflect that.
Does that make sense?
‎Sep 30, 2024 06:09 AM
Thank you Chris this makes things a lot more clear. One more thing regarding your answer to "Question 4":
You mention that the host gets linked and the vm's inherit. We can see in the last picture that that is correct. So even though the field "Linked Asset" is populated in a vm device, there is no actual hard link to the host asset, but a redirection to the host device where in the host device the actual hard link to the host asset is found.
And now I am wondering why that design choise was made. As a user it would make more sense to me to actually show the host asset in the linked asset field inside of the vm device. So instead of showing a redirection, show the asset its linked to. But in this case, there is no actual link. Hence my confusion why the field "Linked Asset" is populated. And even more confused because the setting marked in yellow at the start of the OP says "Link the vm to the same asset as the vm host" even though there is no link going from device -> host asset.
Do you know why this choise was made in the past?
‎Sep 30, 2024 07:17 AM
I don't have any particular insight into why it was done that way, and that might be unanswerable at this point. My guess is that when the team that implemented this aspect of the data model and UI 10+ years ago were thinking about it, this approach made the most sense to them.
Even if you find it somewhat confusing, I hope the description I've given at least helps to clarify what you're seeing.
‎Sep 30, 2024 07:29 AM
User | Count |
---|---|
8 | |
7 | |
3 | |
3 |