Automic Workload Automation

Hello,

So that we know what version of code we have deployed to a client we are proposing on deployment to update a vara object with the version/build number from our source control.  This vara will exist in every automic client (hopefully)

Is there anyway I can get automic to incorporate this version/build number into the report output? So the report for a job would show something like this? Can i change something in client 0?

************************************************************************
**  ucxjhi6m   version 12.0.0+build.3427        changelist 7854944    **
**  JOB 02480002 (ProcID:0000026785) START AT 19.04.2018 / 09:37:45   **
**                                   UTC TIME 19.04.2018 / 08:37:45   **
**  TEXT="        Job started             "                           **
**  JOB ran against build number #####                                **
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
**  ucxjhi6m   version 12.0.0+build.3427        changelist 7854944    **
**  JOB 02480002 (ProcID:0000026785) ENDED AT 19.04.2018 / 09:37:45   **
**                                   UTC TIME 19.04.2018 / 08:37:45   **
**  TEXT="        Job ended               "  RETCODE=00               **
************************************************************************

Hope this makes sense?

Any better way of doing this/suggestions then please let me know....

Cheers,

Dan

Hi

this depends from - where do you want this info displayed - only on OS jobs? Scripts, Workflos? - or every executed object in your whole system?

A good start would be the trainer include (e.g. Windows.trailer) located in client 0.

Here you can create a user include that is called at job start/end/pre/head

Automic 

otherwise you can create your own include that prints some info to the acivation report and put it manually into every object (script or process card) you want to.

cheers, Wolfgang

Hello,

Cheers again Wolfgang .... I have gone for option 2 ... we already had an include than ran in every object so was easy enough to add.

Cheers,

Dan

great! you ' re welcome :-)

cheers, Wolfgang