samwoo

+1 - a user configurable option would be great. By default we put tickets on hold 1 week

Good afternoon, I just wanted to report that the "Release" Type is missing from the first grouping within Email Templates: Please can this be added. Thanks, Samuel

+1 to the hyperlink as well. It would be nice to CTRL + Click on the link without having to highlight the reference, copy to clipboard, duplicate current tab (or navigate to an existing Hornbill tab), hold CTRL + SHIFT then click F, paste the reference, press Enter or Open Request. I like leaving the BPM screen untouched (especially if there are multiple failures) and open the requests and instances in separate tabs.

This is a long shot - I'm no expert at all, but I generally find this a reliable way to see what issues could be lurking about on web apps, such as Hornbill (whether due to issues externally or internally). Would it be worth the users navigating to the page(s) they are having issues with, pressing F12 to open the developer tools in their browser, navigate to the Console tab, then hard refresh (CTRL+F5), and sending the information from the console onto Hornbill once it appears no further activity is taking place?

Hi @Gerry, Our Data Team are looking to utilise Release Management and Change Management for Date Warehouse workflows. The idea is to allow customers to raise individual SRs for scripts to be used to load the data into the Warehouse and for members of the Data Team to log one or more release tickets and go through the tickets logged by the customers and using the BPM of these workflows, once they pick up the ticket as an "Owner" a Human Task appears allowing them to associate the SR with any of the available release tickets. There are a small number of people in the Data Team and they may each raise a release ticket for the current week, or for future weeks so they can plan their workload and prioritize accordingly. Once the release is selected in the SR's Human Task, the release ticket is then automatically linked to the SR (I haven't gotten this bit working yet). Other fields on the SR such as the External Reference (even though its internal) is populated with the Release Ticket reference. When a Release ticket is logged via a certain Service and Catalog with bespoke IC and BPM, I currently use the experimental HTTP request node and the Hornbill API to insert the release reference number into a simple list. Once the bpm reaches a certain part of the release workflow, the release reference number is removed from the Simple List using the experimental HTTP request node, meaning that it's no longer possible to associate any further SRs with the release (an existing release would need to be selected, or a new release would need to be logged for a different week), and the current release can then move on to the next stage of implementation and UAT. Our general users don't have access to the configuration side of Hornbill, and we would like to keep it that way (for obvious reasons), and between myself and my colleague who supports Hornbill, we also support other applications as well, so we cannot maintain Simple Lists each time there is a release (and the Data Team are a different part of our Service). This is the reason for requesting automation in this area. If the concern is that it can impact other simple lists, then could we have security measures applied to Simple Lists that determine which ones can be updated via BPM and which ones cannot? Also prevent Hornbill standard ones from being manipulated via the BPM as well? The other idea I just thought about is what about the possibility of having a Dynamic Dropdown List Box Data Query that can be used return a list of Request References (paginated) but we can add filtering to it to narrow down the list. The only problem with this is that Data Queries are not possible via Human Tasks. * I had almost forgotten about this, but I have also got a Power Automate flow that update simple lists via a Webhook when a mobile phone asset is created, and the sub state is "available for customers". This list is used in a Human Task on one of our processes where the officer can select one of the available asset numbers, process the ticket and mark the asset as assigned to a user, the bpm will then remove it from the list and I've not actually had any feedback about it (hence the reason I almost forgot about it) but it appears to be working fine. Again, this is done because Data Queries cannot be used in Human Tasks. I hope this makes sense; it's been quite a long morning for me so feeling drained but wanted to get this response sorted for you. Thanks, Samuel

Hi @Steve Giller I am aware of advice regarding experimental features. I have been told internally this needs to be automated as much as possible so I provided this as a solution, and I am aware the experimental features could change however unlikely, it is still a possibility, hence the reason I have bumped up this request for this feature to be added to the Hornbill Automation, as well as the other post I raised not too long ago regarding having Hornbill Automation for Simple Lists.

Good afternoon, I would like to request for a couple of additions to the Hornbill Automation, the ability to add or delete Simple List items. I can do this easily using the HTTP Request node, but feel it would be better if it becomes a Hornbill supported addition to the growing list of Hornbill Automations. Add List Item Body Headers URL https://mdh-p01-api.hornbill.com/<INSTANCE NAME>/xmlmc/data/?op=listAddItem

I have a parent request which adds itself to a Simple List via a HTTP Request Cloud Automation: In the child request, there is a human task that grabs the details from the Simple List. The ability to link the two requests together using Hornbill Automation would be most beneficial. I'm not having any luck setting this up to work in a HTTP Cloud Automation (I copied the request payload from the F12 developer tools, but to no avail) unlike the listAddItem one and listDeleteItem ones which always works. So I've already +1 this idea above but I'm hoping my update will bring about its attention again.

Thanks @Deen

We get the same issue

+1

Looks good and +1 to the Calendar view as well

Great idea, +1

Good morning, I have written a PowerShell Function to make it easy to produce the questions JSON and it works at a basic level, but I was looking for some assistance to enhance it: https://github.com/WoodSam90/fnc_New-HB-Form-Questions/blob/main/fnc_New-HB-Form-Questions.ps1 What are the list of available Field Types? Do different field type cause differences to the JSON? For example, different properties for different field types? If so, what are the differences between them all? What are the different Entity Types? Again do different Entity Types mean the JSON will be different? Finally, indirectly related to the above, when a ticket is logged via API with these questions, how can they be accessed via the BPM, as these don't have a intelligent capture to link back to since the questions are populated outside of Hornbill.

Good morning, I really like the Known Errors showing under the Solutions tab in a ticket: But wouldn't it be better to display the Workaround as well as (or instead of) the description? In addition to that, having the Summary show next to the KE Reference. Thanks, Samuel

Hi @Berto2002, Unfortunately, I am not sure what the public setting is meant for. We have ours set to Customer by default: We've not had any issues with this particular setting. Sorry I'm not much help in this case. Thanks, Samuel

+1

Good afternoon, Bumping up an old post. Seems like this post was missed at Hornbill. Please could an Admin/Mod please amend the tag so it includes or is set to "Enhancement" so the developers can see this request. I have a need to set someone's Hornbill access, and they need it from Tuesday next week, but I am on leave next week. This person is moving from one role in the organization to a role that requires Hornbill access, and I'd very much rather not give them the access now, but I don't have much choice. Having my requested feature would allow me and other users to prepare access in advance, for example for New Starters and Mover Requests. Thanks, Samuel

Good afternoon, Any thoughts to this one? Since I logged the issue, I've advised the team to create new users in Hornbill manually and process them as a returner for now as a workaround until this issue is resolved. Thanks, Samuel

Hi @Sandip Bhogal, Not sure how much help I can be, but I'll try.... On the second screenshot, you can see where the red circle is drawn on the image. Clicking on that will reveal a dropdown, where you can define the entity type you wish to have visibility of this Service, such as a General / Team / Department / Company etc. If you have the relevant users and organizations configured in Hornbill, then you can associate that Organisation to the Service as Subscribers and only those Subscribers will have visibility. If you wish to be more specific re. visibility of a specific catalog/form within a service, then you can click the icon within the Catalog Items that looks like a group of people. In here if you disable all visibility then that form will not be visible to anyone until you apply one or more specific organisation visibility. See below if you need to know where to go to amend/create Organisations/Groups/Teams. To view and amend Organisations, navigate to the cogwheel in the bottom left: Switch to Platform Configuration: Switch to Organisational Structure: Then go ahead and create your Organisation Hierarchy. Some things I think about when I am working in this area: Team type - These are organisation/groups containing users who can pick up and action requests/tickets on Hornbill. If you wish to capture a Team that isn't used for requests/tickets assignment in Hornbill, then the advice is to use General - unless someone corrects me if I am wrong. My advice would be to create your first Organisation type of Company then go into that new Company, assign all users (basic and full) if your users are part of one company, then create your directorates / departments / teams (General) etc. within each other to create the Hierarchy. I believe the current advice for the Teams (not General) type is to not put them in the main Organisation Hierarchy and leave them in the top level, but you can add teams within teams if necessary (again someone can correct me if I am wrong).

+1

I certainly won't hold my breath Lol, thanks @Steve Giller!

Good morning, I would like to raise an enhancement request to allow URL parameters in the Change Ownership screen. This is just to speed up accessing the documents a person owns, by allowing the use of Custom Buttons in a particular document that grabs the owner of that document, and populates the URL like so: This is intended for Docmanager Admin users only. Here is what the configuration of the Custom Buttons could look like in the Document Properties screen: Thanks, Samuel

Same here. I changed the Filter Grouping : All then I get this screen:

Good morning, I have archived 2100 Assets for an Asset Type we no longer use, but I just realised that we cannot retire or delete the Asset Type since there are still records using it, yet it still appears in the list of Asset Types. I would like to request an enhancement to the Asset Types screen to enable States to be associated against them. Draft - Preparing a New Asset Type, no one can use this when creating Assets Active - Asset Type can be selected and used Disabled/Suspended - Prevents people from creating new Assets using that Type, so it's not selectable. There could be a reason such as limiting stock etc. Archived/Retired - The Asset Type is no longer in use and is therefore no selectable in the list Thanks, Samuel