Community
- Command Central
- MVP Program
- Monthly Mission
- Blogs
- Groups
- Events
- Media Vault
Products
- Observability
- Network Management
- Application Management
- IT Security
- IT Service Management
- System Management
- Database Management
Content Exchange
- SolarWinds Platform
- Server & Application Monitor
- Database Performance Analyzer
- Server Configuration Monitor
- Network Performance Monitor
- Network Configuration Manager
- SQL Sentry
- Web Help Desk
Free Tools & Trials
Store

Violation details report and identifying which lines are in violation

First, I'm pretty new to NCM having used alterpoint in the past, so hopefully this is something simple that I'm missing

In my rule definition, I use the "advanced config search" option and find 10-15 different strings for the rule. For example, my rule might be "xyz_global" that will have my 10-15 checks against the global config for the xyz device set.

So if I run a compliance report, I can click into the rule violation, and it gives me a pattern by pattern breakdown of each of the 15 checks within the rule and whether it was found or not. But it doesn't identify what is in violation and what isn't. For a rule that is all "must find" checks, you can identify by which lines are not found. But for rules that are a mix of "must contain" and "must not contain", there's nothing to identify which lines are in violation.

Am I missing something here?

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

fcaron

You are not mising something, there is no way to identify the offending statement more clearly, today. I have opened an enhancement request (73121)

All comments

fcaron

Hi,

I think an example might help me. Can you send me (or post here) your rule that is a mix of "must contain" and "must not contain", and highlight how you would like the violation to be identified?

Also, I'm not sure it'll help, but just in case, you might want to look at this thread, abotu Regex in compliance rules:

cbomholt

Yeah, that wasn't what I was going after.

I'm attaching two files. The first is an example rule, and the second is an example of the violation details screen. The problem is that the violation is the last line there, but there's nothing to signify that is a violation and not a pass. I would expect there to be a red X or ! or something to identify that is where the problem is.

Let me know if that makes sense-

fcaron

Now I see.

Let me crank on that.

fcaron

You are not mising something, there is no way to identify the offending statement more clearly, today. I have opened an enhancement request (73121)