How to fix different results between "View By:" label, and loading a label from Advanced Search?
Why is it that I get two different results when pulling up the same smart label from two different areas? When under Inventory -> Devices, in the top right selecting my label "ExpiringOS" under the "View By" dropdown only gives me 4 results. However, clicking "Advanced Search" -> "Smart Label" and selecting ExpiringOS gives me what I think is the full set of results. But since I'm getting different counts from the same label in two different places, I'm not sure I can even trust these results to be fully accurate. I've tried rebooting the system just to try to fix this, but to no avail. Why is this, or really, how can this be resolved?
Answers (2)
As soon as you open a search window it ignores the "View By" option that you have selected, so in other words your search is not filtered by your selected label, it is the results of all machines in inventory.
Comments:
-
I should clarify. Both of these screenshots are unrelated. As in, both were started by looking at the full inventory without any filters or anything. The top one is only loading the smart label in advanced. Separately, from a completely untouched full list view of devices again, the second screenshot I have only selected the View By option without doing anything with the advanced search. - teamOC 2 years ago
Top Answer
I believe I've found the reason. As of this morning we had 11 devices instead of 4 in the View By method, and I noticed that it was only devices that have ran inventory since I've created and applied those rules to the Smart Label. And it seems loading a Smart Label under the advanced search runs it just as a search with the same parameters as the label.
I don't know if this is purposeful or not, but I don't agree this should be the behavior, especially for the quick-view option at the top of the page. Technically, I understand the thought process that you don't want a device to enter a smart group without confirming the rules apply via a inventory update, but I think that reason is a little weak and using existing data should be good in most cases, especially to avoid confusion like this.. I do believe this might have been why, in the past, when scoping and pushing out installs it seemed like KACE wasn't even attempting to push to all the clients I expected. Things like this are why using KACE feels like death from 1000 papercuts honestly.