Some log entries blank

[Taylor_Armstron]

Just curious if anyone else has seen this - only appeared in the past couple of days that I've noticed.

Policy is fairly simple, it is just installing all cached software for systems in a smart group based on an EA which specifically checks for installers in the WaitingRoom directory.

Most machines return the expected result: (first image)

For others, I'm seeing a completely blank entry as shown here.

Again, I've only noticed this in the past 48 hours or so, but may have just not been paying attention.

JSS 9.82, clients are a mix of 10.9 and 10.10.

[thoule]

I've not seen that before. I'd be curious if you keep an eye on it, do they fill in later? It wouldn't surprise me if it uploads the report at another time. Try putting 'jamf recon' in Files and Processes of the policy to see if it the problem continues.

[Taylor_Armstron]

Bump. Anyone else seen this?

Looking a bit closer today, I've flushed the logs, and the same systems keep popping up with the issue. The "install cached" is based on a smart group which simply checks to see if the packages are cached, so it seems that the packages exist, but the "install" policy isn't doing anything on those systems that I can see.

I'm going to flush the "cache" policies and see if re-downloading the package changes anything, but curious to know if I'm the only one seeing this.

[gperque]

Same issue for me with JSS 9.82, 10.9.5 and 10.10.5 clients :(
With the same configuration, some computers install successful but other return blank logs and don't install the package.
Similarity : I want to the install the Office 2011 14.6.1 Update package (the policy just install this package and update inventory)
Do you have find the problem ?

[edit] : I think i have the reply :
In our previously JSS 9.63 version, no logs was submitted to the JSS when the user defer the policy but with the actual 9.82 version a blank log is submitted with "completed" status.

BR

[were_wulff]

Hey all,

This sounds pretty similar to a known issue we have in which, when a user elects to defer a policy it will report back to the JSS as "completed" with no additional information logged.

There are a couple of different behaviors associated with this, and they depend on whether the policy is set to ongoing or once per computer.

What we've found is when the policy is set to ongoing and is deferred by the user, the policy will report as complete when it eventually runs, and we get a blank entry for the policy log when looking at it in the JSS.

However, if the policy is set to once per computer and is deferred by the user, the policy may still show as pending in the JSS, and no policy logs are created once the policy actually does run; once the policy runs, it appears to show the same blank policy log entry.

Everything still seems to work in terms of the policy actually executing as expected on the user's computer, but the JSS admin may mistakenly assume that a policy has run on a computer when it has not due to the user deferring and, of course, it leaves the policy log looking a little weird and missing some information that an admin may want.

We have this filed as D-010114; if you haven't already opened a case with your Technical Account Manager to verify that this is what you're seeing in your environment (and, if it is, to get it attached to D-010114 for our internal tracking), please do so when you get a chance.
You can get in touch with your TAM either by giving them a call, sending an e-mail to support@jamfsoftware.com, or by using the My Support section of JAMF Nation.

Thanks!
Amanda Wulff
JAMF Software Support

[mpermann]

@amanda.wulff I have a case opened (defect D-010208) in regards to a policy using deferment with a once per computer frequency where if the policy is deferred the policy will be marked as completed (no longer pending) and there will be a blank entry in the log. The difference for me is I don't see the policy ever execute after the deferment time has passed. The policy worked fine in 9.73 and 9.81 but only started being an issue once we upgraded to 9.82. Maybe you can take a look at the defect I mentioned and compare it to the one you sited to see if the circumstances are different or not. They may be slightly different and may account for why I'm seeing a different result.

[were_wulff]

@mpermann

I took a quick look at the case you had opened with your TAM, and it does look like you were either running into something a bit different or possibly a combination of the two issues.

The particular issue you mentioned here (D-010208) is a little bit different from the one that I mentioned, though it does look as though the two may overlap in some cases in terms of what shows in the policy log.

In your case, based on the notes left, it does look like the primary issue you were seeing is D-010208. With D-010114 we see the odd look of the policy logs, but my understanding is that the policy does actually complete as normal, it just doesn't log it properly on the JSS' side.

In the case of D-010208, it appears as if those policies defer automatically (when they obviously shouldn't), and never automatically trigger after the deferral date/time has passed.
It appears as though D-010208 could potentially cause the behavior in the policy logging that we see in D-010114 as there does seem to be some overlap between the two (specifically the blank entry in the policy log), but one is not likely the root cause of the other.

If you have additional questions on that, it'll likely be faster and more effective to get back in touch with your TAM to go over it, as he'll know your workflows and environment quite a bit better than I do.

Thanks!
Amanda Wulff
JAMF Software Support

[mpermann]

@amanda.wulff thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to make you aware of the other defect in case you hadn't seen it yet. ;-)