Add CI relationship support

DATAGERRY is currently only supporting a reference type field that can only contain a ‘one-to-one’ relationship type.

It would be beneficial for DataGerry to support multiple CI relationship types for a reference or a separate field named relationships.

As this will provide the ability for the CMDB to support objects that contain multiple relationships.

An example of such a scenario would be a LAMP (Linux Apache MySQL PHP) server where multiple software objects can be related.

At the moment this is only possible if creating a single object named ‘LAMP stack’ the components are not able to be individually linked, unless made part of multiple reference fields.

It will be great being able to select multiple reference categories, objects, types, etc.

Then set the relationship type e.g

  • one to one
  • one to many
  • many to one
  • many to many

Another scenario would be a router connected to a switch, or a stacked switch with multiple stack members that are related to a master object.

We did run into this issue as well in the simple case where we need to reference many objects of type “User” inside an object “Group” which seems impossible at the moment. Is this planned or possible in another way?


Hello @gdespreslaberge and welcome to our community

If you extend the type ‘User’ with the reference field ‘Group’ you can assign a group to each user.

In the object overview of the group, you can then see in the footer under the tab ‘Referenced by’ all users that are assigned to the group.

An assignment of several objects to a reference field is available in the backlog, but must be worked out in more detail.

Thank you very much for the reply @sergej.dumler, we will work around with the incoming references as you suggested. Might be a bit trickier to import from our old system but we’ll manage. I’ve seen you have an open Jira board, is there a task/ticket that I could follow?

Good morning,

With kind regards

when can we expect the release of functionality in field reference:

  • one to many
  • many to many?

When can we expect you to address this important topic?