Skip to content

Added information about SRM Solution RN: 39357, 39199, 36792, 38346, …#6007

Open
JorgeFilipeDias wants to merge 2 commits intoSkylineCommunications:mainfrom
JorgeFilipeDias:DCP279493
Open

Added information about SRM Solution RN: 39357, 39199, 36792, 38346, …#6007
JorgeFilipeDias wants to merge 2 commits intoSkylineCommunications:mainfrom
JorgeFilipeDias:DCP279493

Conversation

@JorgeFilipeDias
Copy link
Member

Added information about SRM Solution RN: 39357, 39199, 36792, 38346, 37080, 39096 and 37774
Aligned SRM Solution silent actions code to be using the SRM dev pack and corrected a few mistakes in the code

…37080, 39096 and 37774

Aligned SRM Solution silent actions code to be using the SRM dev pack and corrected a few mistakes in the code
>
> - In case a null service definition is provided, SRM will use a dynamically generated blank service definition.<!-- RN 30324 -->
> - To add a resource without linking it to a node in the service definition, do not provide the *Id* attribute of the *Function* object.<!-- RN 30324 -->
> - Since version 1.2.34 it's possible to pass the security view Ids, for that fill the *SecurityViewIds* property of the *Booking* object with the list of security view Guids.<!-- RN 37774 -->

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

S: Since version 1.2.34, it is possible to pass security view IDs. To do so, fill in the SecurityViewIds property of the Booking object with a list of security view GUIDs.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

>
> - In case a service definition needs to be created, it will not be a template.
> - A non-template service definition will not be cleaned up.
> - Since version 1.2.33 <!-- RN 36792 --> it is possible to pass the desired service definition as a parameter to the *RemoveResourceAndNode* and *TryRemoveResourceAndNode* methods. In that case, if the passed service definition contains the correct nodes it will be used, otherwise the behavior will be the same as described above.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

S: "If the passed service definition contains the correct nodes, it will be used; otherwise, the behavior will be the same as described above."

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

> - In case no label is provided, SRM will try to identify a free node based on function type.
> - In case a free and compatible node is found, but it has a non-matching label, that node will be picked.
> - In case no label is provided and a new service definition needs to be created, the function name will be used as the label.
> - Since version 1.2.33 <!-- RN 36792 --> it is possible to pass the desired service definition as a parameter to the *AddResource* and *TryAddResource* methods. The user needs to make sure that the passed service definition is compatible with the booking and contains a node with the provided label, otherwise undesired behavior may occur <!-- RN 38346 -->.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
> - Since version 1.2.33 <!-- RN 36792 --> it is possible to pass the desired service definition as a parameter to the *AddResource* and *TryAddResource* methods. The user needs to make sure that the passed service definition is compatible with the booking and contains a node with the provided label, otherwise undesired behavior may occur <!-- RN 38346 -->.
> - Since version 1.2.33 <!-- RN 36792 --> it is possible to pass the desired service definition as a parameter to the *AddResource* and *TryAddResource* methods. Since version 1.2.35<!-- RN 38346 -->, the user needs to make sure that the passed service definition is compatible with the booking and contains a node with the provided label, otherwise undesired behavior may occur.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

Comment on lines +101 to +103
> [!NOTE]
> When the *TargetNodeLabel* is empty or null, the resource added to the booking will not be mapped to any node in the service definition.<!-- RN 30150 --> Such an unmapped resource can only be present once per booking. To unassign a resource that is not mapped to any node in the service definition, use the method *UnassignResources* as illustrated above.
> Since version 1.2.33 <!-- RN 37080 --> *AssignResourceRequest* supports capacity reference, for that the reference string should be passed in the *InputReference* property of the request.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
> [!NOTE]
> When the *TargetNodeLabel* is empty or null, the resource added to the booking will not be mapped to any node in the service definition.<!-- RN 30150 --> Such an unmapped resource can only be present once per booking. To unassign a resource that is not mapped to any node in the service definition, use the method *UnassignResources* as illustrated above.
> Since version 1.2.33 <!-- RN 37080 --> *AssignResourceRequest* supports capacity reference, for that the reference string should be passed in the *InputReference* property of the request.
> [!NOTE]
> - When the *TargetNodeLabel* is empty or null, the resource added to the booking will not be mapped to any node in the service definition.<!-- RN 30150 --> Such an unmapped resource can only be present once per booking. To unassign a resource that is not mapped to any node in the service definition, use the method *UnassignResources* as illustrated above.
> - Since version 1.2.33 <!-- RN 37080 --> *AssignResourceRequest* supports capacity reference, for that the reference string should be passed in the *InputReference* property of the request.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

@JorgeFilipeDias JorgeFilipeDias marked this pull request as ready for review March 10, 2026 13:22
@JorgeFilipeDias JorgeFilipeDias requested a review from a team as a code owner March 10, 2026 13:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants