Jump to content


Hornbill Users
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Milton Keynes

Recent Profile Visitors

873 profile views

DFarran's Achievements


Contributor (5/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. @Gerry Thanks Gerry, I was just working through it with a colleague and we just came to the conclusion that we're currently using a User ID for ADFS which doesn't exist on Azure hence why it doesn't work and is confirmed by your advice. It seems like changing the 'Logon ID' field in Hornbill to match the username coming from Azure allowed it to work, is that a way around it without changing User ID? I believe changing the User ID field via our User import would mean it would create all users as new users as they wouldn't match the existing user records? Regards, Daniel.
  2. Good Afternoon, I know SSO might be a hot topic at the moment with the changes made in the last update, we were actually waiting for this change in order to make a smoother transition to using a Azure SSO profile. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working and I was hoping for some advice on where to look for possible causes. We have checked on Azure and the login request shows as a success so it appears that its failing when passing the request back to Hornbill. All I get is a message on the Hornbill login page saying 'unable to validate user credentials'... Any advice or guidance would be appreciated. Thanks, Daniel.
  3. Hello, We created a problem and published it as a known issue however when a user clicks on the 'me too' button on the service portal it doesn't add them correctly as a connection. In the timeline it either shows nothing or it shows 'Impacted connection 0 has been added via Portals'. Then if you go to connections section of the call it shows one there but it is blank then when you remove this connection it says 'Impacted connection (undefined undefined) has been removed'. Is this something anyone can assist with? It seems like an update somewhere along the line may have broken/changed the way this works. Any assistance would be appreciated. Regards, Daniel.
  4. Hi @Gerry, Thanks for the reply, is there anyway to be kept up to date with the progress of the change? I think our compliance manager will want us to hold off until there is something in place to prevent the possibility of spoofing so it would be good to see the progress. Regards, Daniel.
  5. Good Afternoon, We are looking at trying to move away from using the @live.hornbill.com address for our outbound emails and want to us our own email address/domain. From reading the guidance it says we need to add an SPF record, when i passed this onto our technical architect he raised a potential security risk that this would allow any hornbill customers to send emails as if they were coming from our domain. Is this how it would be or is there anything in place to prevent this? Regards, Daniel.
  6. Thanks @Deen, can confirm its resolved our issue.
  7. Hi @David Hall, We applied the update this morning but the visibility issue still persists. Please let me know what information you need from me to help you try to replicate the issue. Regards, Daniel.
  8. Good Morning, We have only just applied the update this morning and a lot of our filters appear to be broken too. Should all instances have been patched by now or is it something we need to request? Thanks. Daniel.
  9. Hi @James Ainsworth Thanks for the advice, which suspend would you recommend? I tried adding a suspend wait for request update on one of the failed processes but when I saved and restarted it the process didn't actually suspend but went past that stage and did end up sending an email. I was however able to cancel the process afterwards as it did end up on a suspend node further in the process. Regards, Daniel.
  10. Hi @James Ainsworth Thanks for the advice, none of them say version 0. As the majority are from August I just wanted to clear the failures as the request itself would have been dealt with and I didn't really want it sending out emails for these old requests to customers which could cause confusion. What would you recommend should I wait for the update and then delete the failed instances? Thanks, Daniel.
  11. Good Morning, Just a quick question regarding failed BPM instances, we have quite a few from when we initially went live back in August where some of our BPMs weren't quite setup correctly. I'm trying to go through and tidy these up but a lot of them I can't restart/resume as it says the instance cant be found, I assume its because its been a number of months since they initially failed. Is it ok to just delete the instances within Applications -> Hornbill Service Manager -> Business Processes -> Executed Processes? I assume this wont delete the actual request? I don't want to delete the requests just clear the failed BPMs that cant be restarted. Thanks, Daniel.
  12. Hi @David Hall Please see attached screenshot, the top roles are from a colleague having the issue and the bottom roles are mine. Appreciate your help with this. Regards, Daniel.
  13. Hi @David Hall We have applied update 1805 but analysts still have the same issue. The first screenshot attached shows when one of my colleagues trying to change the sub status of a call, as you can see the default is 'Public' even though this isn't on the list. Whereas the second screenshot is when I try to change the sub status of a call, it defaults to team which is correct as per the settings. The only difference between us is that I have some extra permissions. Regards, Daniel.
  14. Hi @David Hall, Thanks for the reply, I have checked and that drop down is blank for all of our sub statuses.Maybe the fact that its blank is causing issues? I could try going through and adding a default to each of them, the interesting thing is that the issue doesn't occur for me but I do have a few more permissions that others do so I'm not sure if that is also playing a part. As a side note I removed owner from the setting mentioned by James earlier in the thread and the default visibility now goes to public for the affected users which isn't ticked, the only two options that are now ticked are Customer and Team. Regards, Daniel.
  15. We have some analysts who are seeing the default visibility as 'owner' when putting a call on hold or taking a call off hold, the default is set to 'customer' in the settings. I dont think its a browser issue as i got them to try in both Internet Explorer and Google Chrome and they got the same result. I also tried changing the default to 'team' in the settings but that didnt make a difference either. Are there any suggestions on what to do to resolve this? Regards, Daniel.
  • Create New...