Computer Name Change creates new asset

[Jsydney]

Hello,

I did a brief search for this and didn't find an answer to my issue, so if one exists I apologize.

Alright, so my system administrator has enabled "detect computer name change" in the configuration options on the server, yet during my testing with lspush, it still created a new asset page under the new name. My process follows:

1. Download lspush.exe to test machine, called B5
2. Run lspush.exe successfully, B5 asset page created in LS
3. Change computer name to B5TEST and reboot
4. Run lspush.exe again successfully, B5TEST asset page created in LS

In the knowledgebase it notes that when the detection option is checked, it ignores the unique key and scans the databse for an existing instance of the Serial/Model/MAC combination of the asset, and updates an existing asset with that matching info. However, this has not happened- the serial/model/MAC for both asset pages is identical. Is there something I am missing in my testing?

Thank you!

[Antax]

I am running 6.0.0.24 and the name change is not working. I had to change the name of a computer and it created a new asset.

[Jsydney · Accepted solution]

We have applied the new public update, and the issue is fixed. Hostname change is now functioning as intended.

[Jsydney]

Lansweeper support has informed me that they've updated to version v6.0.0.2.3 (available here, and the fix for this issue is rolled in. My sysadmin hasn't applied the update yet, but I'll update with results after we apply it, if one of you don't update first.

[AdmJLovejoy]

Any update on this issue?

[AP_IT]

Thanks for raising this question. We are experiencing the same issue. It's a problem when you end up have multiple assets that have the same unique identifiers.

I've contacted support via email, as well. Once I get an answer, I'll update this thread.

[Jsydney]

Just in case anyone comes across this thread with the same issue and clicks the back button due to no replies being posted, I've been told by Lansweeper support that this may be due to a bug in v6.0. I'm awaiting further response after they do some testing.