(imported comment written by Lee Wei)
herrm,
The report is contained in the file fixlet_compliance.js.
On line 39 in the most current version, you can change the number of lines to be displayed per the following.
var diplayedRelevantFixlets = 1000;
Lee Wei
(imported comment written by Lee Wei)
Added the additional Content (Fixlet) filters created by Mark Macherey to the report, now at version 1.6.
http://forum.bigfix.com/viewtopic.php?id=5393
Please see the first post to download and update.
Lee Wei
(imported comment written by cstoneba)
Hi Lee, I am trying to use custom relevance statement for the computer group wthin this report ( (name of it) of bes computers whose (value of results (bes property âSBUâ,it) contains âTOCâ)
), but it errors with the message below. Withi this session relevance statment, i am able to get computers back within the BigFix Session Relevance Tester so I know the results are good.
Error: The operator âidâ is not defined.
Statement:
unique values of (id of it as string & â||â & (" â) of (ip addresses of it as string)) else (â ")) & â||â & ((year of it as string & â/â & month of it as two digits & â/â & day_of_month of it as two digits) of date(local time zone) of it & " "& (two digit hour of it as string & â:â & two digit minute of it as string & â:â & two digit second of it as string) of time (local time zone) of it) of last report time of it) of elements of unions of ((sets of (name of it) of bes computers whose (value of results (bes property âSBUâ,it) contains âTOCâ)))
(imported comment written by Lee Wei)
Chris,
The âEdit Custom Relevanceâ field expects BES Computer objects, not the Name.
So you are very close.
((name of it) of bes computers whose (value of results (bes property
"SBU" , it) contains
"TOC"))
should be,
(bes computers whose (value of results (bes property
"SBU" , it) contains
"TOC"))
Lee Wei
(imported comment written by SystemAdmin)
Hi Lee
Is there any issues with this report & version 8 for RHEL 5?
Since the upgrade to version 8 you can see that from week 4 there are suddenly more Fixlets available and more worryingly it is showing no patches have been applied. Can you think of a reason for this?
The subscribed sites have been changed as the site Patches for Redhat Enterprise Linux has been superseded & instead RHEL 3, 4 & 5 have been enabled. All 23 machines are RHEL 5
As you can see from the report there are still the same number of machines reporting in (23) Could changing the subscribed site loose the installed patch info?
Thanks
Dean
(imported comment written by Lee Wei)
Dean,
I donât recognize the screenshot as from this report.
In any case, the report is independent of the content. You should investigate the data for your Red Hat site separately, probably using the BigFix Console.
Lee Wei
(imported comment written by tscott91)
Is there a way to not include âhiddenâ fixlets? There are certain things we canât patch for certain reasons (Java for example) so I globally hide those. I donât want my report to show those are needed because we canât patch it so it skews my numbers.
Thanks!
This is by far my favorite report that I use the most!
(imported comment written by Lee Wei)
tscott,
Yes, it is possible to filter the Fixlets only for those visible and exclude the hidden ones. There are Global and Local flags known respectively as âGlobally Visible Flagâ and âLocally Visible Flagâ.
Until and unless I modify the JavaScript source located below, you will have to modify the file yourself.
\BigFix Enterprise\BES Server\BESReportsServer\wwwroot\ext-3.2.0\fixlet_compliance.js
There are many places to make the change, here is an example code fragment, and what to edit:
Original code fragment for all Critical Fixlets for MS patches:
(sets of bes fixlets whose (display name of site of it = âPatches for Windows (English)â and source severity of it as lowercase = âcriticalâ and name of it as lowercase does not contain âcorrupt patchâ and name of it as lowercase does not contain âsupersededâ))
Change to:
(sets of bes fixlets whose (
color=red
globally visible flag of it = true and [/color]display name of site of it = âPatches for Windows (English)â and source severity of it as lowercase = âcriticalâ and name of it as lowercase does not contain âcorrupt patchâ and name of it as lowercase does not contain âsupersededâ))
Lee Wei
(imported comment written by ksonic91)
Hi Lee,
When I added a filter for Content > Source Release Date, I no longer see any other Computer group beside âAll computerâ, All Windows Computers, and Custom Relevance Expression.
(imported comment written by Lee Wei)
ksonic,
Sorry I did not get the symptom of the problem.
Can you please elaborate. What did you put into the textfield for Content?
âSource Release Dateâ would have been an incorrect statement. We need to write a Session Relevance statement that returns one or more Fixlets.
Please feel free to send me a private message as well.
Lee Wei
(imported comment written by tharryman91)
Lee;
This is a most excellent report, and I use it often. I have requests to provide the results to others, and I would prefer to do this automagically instead of logging in and exporting the report through some fashion.
I saw in an earlier post how this is not possible to be scheduled because it uses Javascript. Is there any other way of getting this exported as an HTML via email?
Thanks for this.
(imported comment written by Lee Wei)
tharryman,
Thanks for the feedback about the need for emailing.
Sounds like at best this is inconvenient.
The report also requires user interaction at the moment, which is also why it cannot be generated automatically.
This will involve rewriting and re-architecting in the future.
Lee Wei
(imported comment written by cstoneba)
Lee, any way to change this report to use either Groups or Retreived Property values when selecting computer targets? We donât really use computer groups because the properties that would define the groups are always an optoin in the console, and it would be nice to just use the same method in this report.
(imported comment written by Lee Wei)
Chris,
Right now it is possible by choosing the âCustom Relevance Expressionâ option for Computer Groups.
It is not convenient, but a possible workaround.
Here is an example of a relevance:
computers of results whose (value of it as lowercase contains âaixâ) of bes properties whose (name of it as lowercase contains âosâ)
bes computers whose (now - last report time of it < 7*day)
What you suggest is possible, but I will have to rewrite the user interface.
Lee Wei
(imported comment written by Lee Wei)
âIs this report compatible with version 8.2.x?â
Yes and no. Yes the report will run, but no, it is not usable because it has become very slow.
Engineering changed Web Reports to reduce memory footprint.
Unfortunately in the process, some needed data is not cached and requires retrieval from the backend database.
Engineering is considering reverting to the old behavior for use cases such as this one.
Lee Wei
(imported comment written by F6D8_Nate_Marks)
Would it be an easy thing to reduce this report to two reports that just create the tables using hardcoded values for filter, baseline and computer group? Iâd like to do that so I can automatically mail the CSVs out to various people. Has it been done? Any tips? Thanks!
(imported comment written by Lee Wei)
Nate,
What you want to do makes sense. It would be great to be able to email the reports automatically.
I will have to put this down on my wish list. Not something trivial to modify in the current report.
Lee Wei
(imported comment written by SystemAdmin)
Sorry to bring back a very old postâŚ
This report work great! I am having problems using the custom relevance expression option in the report. When I enter in a statement, which returns the desired reults in presentation debugger, I recieve an error from the report âThe operator âapplicable computersâ is not defined.â Can anyone help me here?
I would like to return fixlets based on their category aswell as the severity
See the attached screenshot for more details.