9512b0bdb3
A bay reporting machinenumber 3015 got a 500 from the collector every five minutes since it was imaged, and would have forever: the reported number was written to the PC's own assets.assetnumber, which is uniquely indexed and already held by machine 3015, so the insert failed with "Duplicate entry '3015' for key 'ix_assets_assetnumber'" and the entire report was discarded. Operating system, boot time, applications, printers and access protocols never landed. Every retry did the same thing, so there was no path out of it. A new PC now takes its hostname as its asset number, which is what the data already shows: of 289 computers none has a numeric asset number and 214 use their hostname. An existing PC's asset number is left alone; overwriting it renamed the PC onto the machine's identifier, changing how that PC is identified everywhere else. The machine number instead does what it was collected for. It resolves the machine and links the PC to it with a 'controls' relationship carrying a collector:machine origin label, the same discipline the printer and measuring-tool links use, so a link made by hand is never archived by a collector push. Reporting a different machine archives this PC's previous link; a machine ShopDB does not know is reported as a warning rather than invented. When another PC was already linked to that machine it has been replaced. The old link is archived rather than deleted, so which PC ran a machine in a given month remains answerable, and an alert goes out by email and webhook. The retired PC's status is deliberately not changed: the collector cannot tell whether it was shelved, sent for repair or re-imaged for another bay, and guessing would overwrite what a person set.
40 KiB
40 KiB