|
Newbie |
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 3:02 am Posts: 32
|
[quote="Mark"][quote]1) The description finally was updated once the system was deleted at the website level and re-audited. Not a fix really, but for whatever reason, the data isn't being overwritten.
That is actually by design. How it works is: (and this applies to a few items in the System table - see below). Initial audit populates the description and man_description fields. Subsequent audits don't populate man_description. The web pages always show man_description. This is so that if the audit returns data that you consider incorrect (or inaccurate or don't want displayed or whatever), you can over write it and have your changes stay stored.
Other fields that do the same thing are: man_os_group man_os_family man_os_name man_domain man_serial man_model man_manufacturer man_form_factor
Those are the fields you see in the web pages, not their audit obtained equivalents (serial, model, et al). I probably need to enable editing of a couple of these in the System Display page (I don't think you can edit them all at the moment).
There is also the "special" case of man_ip_address. If the IP address from the audit result is taken from DHCP, then man_ip_address is updated. If it's not taken from DHCP (see: a server with a static IP), then it is initially populated but left alone on subsequent audits.
OK, so how to solve your issue with this. I don't want to over write them if blank because that is deliberately by design. We do actually store the info in the fields each time we process an audit (serial, description, etc). Because I usually think along the lines of "but what if I have to update 1,000 of these" versus "I just need to update 2 or 3".
Option 1: Maybe a switch somewhere to say "over write all info in man_* fields regardless".
Option 2: Maybe put something on the "bulk edit" page (when you select more than one system from a report and edit it) to say "revert this field to the audit contents" - that could apply to each field as above.
Hopefully not a stupid question, but would this be done at the audit level, or at the server level?
|
|