"Asset Lock Forcibly Acquired" system notification

#1

Matrix Version: v5.3.4.0

This is similar to this post but as that post was actually very old I thought I will start a new one. The essence of the question is different anyway.

This email notification works fine but when asset locks get forcibly acquired for large form assets, the system spams sys-admins with emails about the lock being forcibly acquired for each property of each form element.

Looking at the configuration I have the options of

  1. Leaving it as it is now (leaving asset.locking.forced in Log to Email White List)
  2. Remove asset.locking.forced from Log to Email White List
  3. Remove asset.locking.forced from Log to Email White List and add asset.locking.forced to Log to Email Black List

But I don’t know what’s the differences it will make between #2 and #3. I know #1 is the default but is it the best practice for everyone? Thanks.

(Bart Banda) #2

If you don’t want them at all, use #3. As that will force it to not send even if you have * added to the White List as * is basically an include all command.

More info here: https://matrix.squiz.net/manuals/system-configuration/chapters/messaging-service-configuration

We have got it on the roadmap to bundle those emails together so that you don’t get one for each attribute lock acquired.
https://squizmap.squiz.net/matrix/10431

#3

Thanks for your response Bart. What will the system do if I just removed it from White List (option #2)?

Also, what’s the best practice? Is there any real risk if we turn off this notification? Thanks.

(Bart Banda) #4

It won’t send it, but if someone adds * or asset.* it will send it again because the * acts as a wildcard, so it’s better to explicitly say which emails you never want to send as that will overwrite the wild cards.

No real best practice, I guess the only risk is that when you do steal the locks from someone they will never know unless you tell them, which is probably rarely an issue. You can switch it off but I guess just let your users know?

#5

Ok … Thanks for clarifying that. Cheers.