I was curious how most of you in the community deal with authoring custom fixlets/tasks, in particular the relevance for them. Please choose all of the options that you use regularly. And thanks for letting us know!
- Write relevance directly, using the Fixlet Debugger to test locally
- Choose amongst the predefined Properties in the Console’s fixlet writer
- Write custom relevance, using Analyses to validate the results
- Write custom relevance, using remote Client Query via WebUI
- Write custom relevance, using Fixlet Debugger’s Remote QNA method to test remotely
- Something else (please comment!)
One thing in particular I’m interested in, is whether I should suggest new administrators define their relevance using the prebuilt properties. Has anyone found that to be practical in real-world operation?
1 Like
The predefined properties are a good place to start for new fixlets/tasks. If I don’t find what I need in the OOB content, I look in the Forum archives, BigFix.me, and/or the BigFix Developer’s sites for additional insight. This usually involves using the Fixlet Debugger to work out the various kinks.
Next, I would normally create analyses. However, the Remote QNA capability is very powerful, so I have begun using it (since it is already in the Debugger) prior to creating any Analyses to validate the new content across multiple machines.
4 Likes
We auto generate fixlets (relevance and action code) for all our customization for Linux.
Started with auto generating relevance for additional RPMs that we installed. Now have the capability of generating a wide range of fixlets. Another advantage of this is that the format is consistent; whereas, each person would use different formats.
2 Likes