For more information regarding the security incident at F5, the actions we are taking to address it, and our ongoing efforts to protect our customers, click here.

F5 case creation tweaks

Problem this snippet solves:

Makes creating cases in the F5 portal a bit less of an head ache. This script uses Tampermonkey and BigIP-report as a data source to tailor make the case creation process according to your environment.

Features

Only show the modules you actually have activated:

Only show the installed versions

You can still see all of them if you need to

Select your loadbalancers from a dynamically populated drop-down menu

Other smaller things

  • Configure default case severity
  • Configure default choice for "Was this working before?"
  • Configure default chose for "Is the problem related to a virtual server?"
  • Configure a default peferred method of contact
  • Configure a default time zone

How to use this snippet:

Instructions on how to use is available here

https://loadbalancing.se/2018/02/11/f5-case-creation-tweaks/#How_to_use

Code :

85493
Published Feb 11, 2018
Version 1.0

10 Comments

  • Thanks Jason!

     

    New version. Added feature: Now the script can handle if BigIPReport has failed to index individual devices.

     

  • You might be able to if you have a copy of the json file generated by BigIPReport. If you don't I might be able to make an update that supports a simple js object.

     

    /Patrik

     

  • Hi Patrick,

     

    I'm having trouble getting this to work. I copied and pasted Casecreation.js file into Tampermonkey and I can see it saved. When I do look at the script, this red X shows up for line 293.

     

    for(var n in deviceNames)

     

    The error says that 'n' is already defined. Could that be causing my issue?

     

  • Yes, I configured it. My bigipReprtURL is there. What should the value be for @connect? I have linuxworker.j.local. Should that be something else?

     

  • Yeah, you should have the same DNS as your bigipreport. Instructions updated again, sorry for being unclear and thanks for feedback.

     

    /Patrik

     

  • Thanks Patrick. I'll have to play around with it a little bit in a DEV area. We have an APM policy in front of the report so the authentication piece might be an issue.