Linking the 'computers' V2 API (introduced in ILMT/BFI version 9.2.8) with 'license_usages' API

Hi Forum,

I am struggling to link the ‘computers’ V2 API (introduced in ILMT/BFI version 9.2.8) with ‘license_usages’ API.

In ILMT/BFI version 9.2.7, I am able to link the ‘computer_systems’ API with the ‘license_usages’ API by using the tag “parent_id” in ‘computer_systems’ that will map onto the tag “computer_system_id” in ‘license_usages’, but this tag is not available in ‘computers’ V2 API.
I tried to to map on the tags “id” and “computer_hardware.server_id” in ‘computers’ API but it also won’t map onto the tag “computer_system_id” in ‘license_usages’

Is it the case that IBM have not updated the ‘license_usages’ API or am I missing/misunderstanding something?

Thanks
Hameed

From what I can see, you would use /api/sam/license_usages as before.

Yes,that is correct. No changes are made to the /api/sam/license_usages.

Any tips on how to link the ‘license_usages’ API with ‘computers’ V2 API ?.

It doesn’t change from the previous approach. The V2 Computers and License Usage remain distinct datasets. Not being a programmer, I would use Excel to parse the XML, and then link the two datasets with a vlookup, where the computers.id value matches the license_usages.computer_system_id value. I would expect a one to many relationship between them.

In computer_systems the “id” would match the “computer_system_id” in license_usage.
But sorry mate, in V2 the computers.id will not match the license_usages.computer_system_id value.
Have a look at the below link where the V1 and V2 APIs are compared.
https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SS8JFY_9.2.0/com.ibm.lmt.doc/Inventory/integration/mapping_computer_systems_to_computers_v2.html
Note here that ‘computer_id’ in computer_systems has been mapped onto computers.id in V2 and that is where I see the broken link.

Hi,

To join the computers V2 API with the license usage API you need to currently go through the computer system API
More specifically, you need to use computer_id field from computer systems, however in many cases you’d need to also utilize the parent_id property in computer systems to expand the hierarchy.
For example: license usage returns a computer system which does not have a corresponding computer_id - in such case you need to make another request to the computer systems API to retrieve all ‘children’ of the ‘parent’. - use criteria and set the parent_id to the computer_system id returned by the license usage API.

We are actively working on replacing the license usage API to be compatible computers V2 API.

Hi,
Yes that is what we have been doing in our integration with computer_systems and license_usage APIs.
Also the reason that “computer_id” in computer_systems will not match the “computer_system_id” in license_usage is that the license-usage is exposing the data at the host level and not at the VM level.
In which release of ILMT/BFI should we expect the license usage API to be compatible computers V2 API? Is there any plan for it?
I am looking forward to this enhancement because the existing computer_systems API is exposing historical devices and now thankfully we can exclude the devices by using the tag “is_deleted” in V2 API but we need to have the updated license_usage API to get all this working for our integration.

Hi,

For now you can check following links, maybe will be helpful for now.

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSKLLW_9.5.0/com.ibm.bigfix.inventory.doc/Inventory/integration/r_api_associantion_usage_data.html#reference_itl_vzf_vz

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSKLLW_9.5.0/com.ibm.bigfix.inventory.doc/Inventory/integration/r_get_software_instances_v2.html

Do not treat following as a commitment :slight_smile: Work on broadening V2 API is on going, observe release notes for V 9.2.10.

Yea, I am aware of these links. The 1st one is actually for the usage (metering); not PVU SubCap and PVU FullCap usage which is our primary interest.
So I don’t need to raise a feature request for it?

Whenever an RFI is raised it is more likely that the feature will find its place on fast track for implementation. And for sure it will not harm.

I have created an RFI for it.
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=112799

Thank you. Development has another reason to prove the client value.