[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: BillMax questions -- name conflict never allowed... or so ithought
Hi Rob,
The only explanation is that the first service (of servdef 3) was created
at a time when the service definition did NOT have any resources defined
(barring the unlikely explanation that someone has been modifying the
service table directly ;). The resources get copied in at creation time,
and it is the resources field in the SERVICE table that get queried for
conflicts.
Why was it done this way? Historical. There were a few clients we worked
with years ago that required the ability to override the resources on a
service by service basis (during a data migration from another billing
system for example). Other methods have been developed since then, so it
isn't overly important to keep it this way I don't think. Something for
the current developers to think about I suppose.
If you have been changing the resources attached to service definitions
you may have more inconsistancies. You should run some queries to find
out. If I thought it about it for a few minutes I could probably come up
with a single query that would report just the inconsistancies, but I am
kind of rushed at the moment, so I leave it as an exercise for the
reader...
Thanks,
j
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Robert Gorrell wrote:
> Here are the results of your query:
>
> d01 servdef state resources
> --------- --------- ------- -----------
> | bentley | 3 | 0 | 0 |
> | bentley | 20 | 1 | 95 |
> --------- --------- ------- -----------
>
> As you can see, I've since closed the second instance to fix our little
> confliction problem, but it looks like to me Billmax did in fact allow
> two services with the same service name. :confused:
>
> I guess from looking above the first instance had no resources tied to
> it which is why this was allowed to happen. But according the service
> definitions, both service types have the same resources and those
> service definitions have remained untouched for quite some time.
>
> How do I go about assuring this doesn't/won't happen again? Check the
> servdef table and make sure appropriate resources are tied to each
> service?
>
> You can see from this query:
> SELECT number,name,resources from servdef where number=3 || number=20
>
> number name resources
> -------- --------------------------- -----------
> | 3 | Standard Internet Service | 95 |
> | 20 | Unlimited University | 95 |
> -------- --------------------------- -----------
>
> The two serv def's do infact have the same resources.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> -Rob
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff LaCoursiere [mailto:jeff@jeff.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 12:32 PM
> > To: Robert Gorrell
> > Subject: RE: BillMax questions -- name conflict never allowed... or so
> i
> > thought
> >
> >
> > How about the resource list in the service table? It is copied in at
> > service creation time. What does this produce:
> >
> > SELECT d01,servdef,state,resources FROM service WHERE d01='bentley';
> >
> > j
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Robert Gorrell wrote:
> >
> > > That's correct. Service.d01 = 'bentley' for two separate accounts.
> > >
> > > -Rob
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jeff LaCoursiere [mailto:jeff@jeff.net]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 12:11 PM
> > > > To: Robert Gorrell
> > > > Subject: RE: BillMax questions -- name conflict never allowed...
> or so
> > > i
> > > > thought
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And the field in question is service.d01?
> > > >
> > > > j
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Robert Gorrell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Jeff -
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your response.
> > > > >
> > > > > I did check both of the service definitions for the two services
> in
> > > > > question. Both have an identical set of resources defined for
> them.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Robert
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Jeff LaCoursiere [mailto:jeff@jeff.net]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 11:54 AM
> > > > > > To: Robert Gorrell
> > > > > > Cc: questions@billmax.com
> > > > > > Subject: Re: BillMax questions -- name conflict never
> allowed...
> > > or so
> > > > > i
> > > > > > thought
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The service definitions must also have overlapping resources
> > > attached
> > > > > to
> > > > > > enforce the name conflict resolution. If you don't have any
> > > resources
> > > > > > defined, or if the definition does not have any resources
> > > attached,
> > > > > name
> > > > > > conflicts are not enforced.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > j
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Robert Gorrell wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm with an ISP running Billmax version 1.5.4 (Redhat
> platform)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Today I came across a somewhat alarming problem. Two
> different
> > > > > accounts
> > > > > > > (both of which in the open state) were seemingly allowed to
> > > posses
> > > > > > > identical service names. Each account had a service of a
> > > differing
> > > > > type
> > > > > > > (but, as said, same service name). I took a look at our
> service
> > > > > > > definitions for each of the two services types in question
> and
> > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > both have Name Conflict set to "Never Ok".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I also went to verify with a few of our test accounts and
> > > Billmax
> > > > > > > behaved as expected. I attempted to add a new service of the
> > > same
> > > > > name
> > > > > > > as an already existing one to a test account. Billmax did
> indeed
> > > not
> > > > > > > allow me to do this. But the question still stands, how did
> > > these
> > > > > two
> > > > > > > accounts end up with services of identical names if name
> > > conflict is
> > > > > set
> > > > > > > to never ok?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for your help
> > > > > > > Robert Gorrell
> > > > > > > Appalachian Technologies
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the "BillMax Questions" mailing list, please
send a message to "majordomo@billmax.com" with "unsubscribe questions"
in the message body. The message must be sent from the exact email
address on the list.