Active IQ Unified Manager Discussions
Active IQ Unified Manager Discussions
Hey all,
Background:
I installed a series of new OnCommand/DFM 5.0 systems as part of an upgrade/redesign process here at work. I distributed from a single DFM4.0.1 system to a series of OC5.0 systems. Each day we email a custom .xls report to an internal tool we have so that folks can view the data and use as they see fit.
Issue:
With the exception of one of the new OC systems, all the .xls reports are wrapping the final field onto the next row, resulting in the data in the wrong column. The report shows about 5 standard columns (e.g., Storage System Name, Volume Name, etc.) with the final field being Volume Comments. This Volume Comments field is where we see the problem. We have a number of custom comment fields and it's the final field that has data that is getting wrapped onto the next row.
I though this might be due to a carriage return embedded in the comment somehow but I modified the comment on one object with just a single word and it still wraps. Again, this isn't happening on one of the new systems and I've double check/compared the report parameters and they are identical. The report renders properly in a browser but the moment I export it to a spreadsheet, the problem appears.
Has anyone seen this before? Thanks!
-Dave
Solved! See The Solution
I found the problem - I had a ^M at the end of the comment just before the one that was wrapping. I tested by setting the comment manually and this fixed it.
I'll sed out this special character from my .csv files and re-add the comments. Thanks for your help!
dcornely1,
Just for clarification. Are you creating the custom report using the older Operations Manager reporting engine or the new OnCommand 5.0 reporting engine (based on BIRT)? Because both reporting engines are available in OnCommand 5.0, it helps to know which one you're using.
I'm using the old reporting engine in all cases, both for the ones I'm seeing the problem and the one where I'm not.
Good point though and I'll try creating the report in the new engine to see if the same issue exists, thanks!
Also, just to confirm I'm looking at the correct areas, here is what I believe is the view from the new engine:
And here is what I believe is the old engine:
As you can see, there are no reports that show up in the new one. And what's interesting is on page 125 of the OC5.0 Admin Guide it tells you to use the old engine to create custom reports so I'm not exactly sure how I would go about creating them in the new engine (assuming I'm categorizing old & new appropriately).
Thanks for the screenshots. That helps me understand you're using the older reporting engine.
The new reporting tool is the one that uses BIRT as the engine. You create custom reports in it by pulling-up a canned report, customizing it, and then saving it as a custom report. However, you cannot create a report from scratch in the new tool. I believe that's why the documentation still refers you to the old engine.
I'll try to see if I can re-create it and understand why is wrapping text when it exports it in Excel format. Have you tried exporting it in any other formats? If so, do they wrap text as well, or it it just Excel format?
I just tested the report in html format and it is not wrapping the fields in that format. So it only appears in .xls format for 5 of the 6 new DFM systems.
I'm still trying to create the report in BIRT, first time using that functionality so slow going.
Thanks!
I found the problem - I had a ^M at the end of the comment just before the one that was wrapping. I tested by setting the comment manually and this fixed it.
I'll sed out this special character from my .csv files and re-add the comments. Thanks for your help!
Hi,
I have two suggestions for you.
Regards
adai
Just realized you might have been referring to the new OC Report tool, the one that uses IBM Cognos to create reports. We are not using that tool at all yet, although we plan to shortly. Regardless, that tool in its current 1.0 version does not report on DFM custom comment fields at all, so unfortunately we wouldn't be able to use it for this particular purpose anyways.
We do have an enhancement request in to add this functionality to it.