samwoo

Good morning, I was wondering if this has been picked up and discussed at all? We've had some certificates we were not aware of expiring last minute and need somewhere to record this information where we can interact / run reports from with ease and eventually use it to auto log tickets (hopefully automatically) in the future. Thanks, Samuel

Good afternoon, It would be good if we can record certificates as Assets and then be able to link them as CI's to other assets, but I don't have a great deal of knowledge on how certificates work or are set up / issued. But I think we need either a new asset class, or extra fields adding to existing classes... (an expert can say whether these are important or not, or whether we need more fields added) Friendly Name Issued To [Text] Issued By [Text] Issued Date [Date] Start Date / Valid from [Date] Expiry Date / Valid to [Date] Certificate Type (Wildcard, Single Domain) [List] Certificate Store (Personal, Trusted Root Certification, Enterprise Trust etc...) [List] Certificate Template Thumbprint [Text] Intended Purpose(s) [Multiline Text - displays Wiki Markup in read only mode] Purchase Cost Certificate Path I don't want to muck around with translating the existing fields used for other Asset Classes and Types. With this information, we can then run automation to log tickets when certain certificates are due to expire etc. and have everything updated as part of the Business Process. Please can this be considered. Kind Regards, Samuel

Good morning, We have an external networks team working on our network queries / issues and this team needs be a part of most services as could get tickets from any Service, but we need to be able to restrict WHO can assign tickets to this team. Our Infrastructure team should be the only members who can assign tickets to this team as the third party cannot troubleshoot so tickets will need a full assessment before being assigned to the third party, so everyone else will be able to assign to Infrastructure, then they do a full troubleshoot/assessment, update the ticket with the details, and then pass it on to this third-party team if necessary. I don't know if this is possible, to prevent everyone from being able to reassign to this team, except a small group of people. If not, please can I raise this as an enhancement?

Thanks Daniel - much appreciated. The display as doesn't seem to render the blockquote, properly so might be a limitation of the wiki?

+1

Hi @Daniel Dekel, I know this is an old post... but I had been trying to find out what properties blockquote would take, as the Wiki hasn't been updated to include this. Please can |actor: and |date: properties be described on the Wiki Markup page? Thanks, Samuel

Good evening, I think we are looking at replacing our CRM system, hopefully I've not misunderstood what was being said. I've not been asked by anyone to look into this, I was merely just wondering... Is there any CRM solutions being developed or in discussion at Hornbill? I will admit I know almost nothing about CRM... So cannot answer any questions or anything.

Oh that's interesting I saw a couple of accounts earlier today like that and I thought someone must have done something wrong. I then corrected the issue. We don't use Data import at all, but but we do create accounts automatically via the BPM and pulling the managers details after the user selects via Data Source pulling all users on the form. Then with the managers information to populate the New Starters Manager details which has been working. I was able to correct it manually via the User Account profile though but didn't think anything else of it at the time. Maybe something is up with the API?

Here is a mock-up using the developer tools:

+1 to Adrian's idea @Steve Giller - not sure what @Adrian Simpkins would think of this (Adrian - please feel free to shout out if you completely disagree), but what about having it configured per service rather than globally? This will allow us to select what Connection Types customers can add, and how many of that connection type can be added once a request has been raised? In addition, provide the ability to allow the Customer to go in and make any amendments to existing connections if they so wish (which could also be configurable so it can be disabled so they must ask the analyst to change it).

+1

Update - I selected one of my colleagues who uses Hornbill in that list, and it correctly returns their Assets. So, the issue is that the User ID doesn't work for "Basic" users, and if a "Basic" user is supplied, the process doesn't know what to do then by default, returns the Assets of the Customer.

Hi @James Ainsworth, Thank you for getting in touch. I already have the "Owned By" variant of the node set up to run next to the "Used By" variant just incase. I have done some further checks and may have identified the problem... if I use the dropdown list next to User ID, I can only select "User" users... none of the "Basic" users appear in the list. I have tried hardcoding the "Basic" User ID in there (using Variable as this can't be done using Manual) but no matter what I do, it returns the Assets that I am linked to as the "Customer" of the ticket.

I just wanted to add it also does the same thing if Used By = False

Good afternoon, As part of the Leaver process we need to have all the Leaver's Assets added to the ticket. There is a process for this but it appears to be broken. I am using a Variable under User ID and I can confirm that the source (leaverDetails which is the Application -> Users -> Get User Details) works to pull the Leaver's Details as this information is used to populate the Custom Field, but when the BPM gets to this part of the process, it adds my own Assets (as the person who is logging this test ticket) instead of the Leavers that I select, despite me specifying the User ID in this process. Please can someone have a look at this as it will be a critical part of the Leaver and something the Service have been wanting to happen for a while. Thanks, Samuel

Good afternoon, I have just noticed that the Created Linked Requests process via the BPM are updating the timeline out of sequence. You can't link a request to the main ticket, before it's been created... For us, our timelines show updates Newest updates at the top to Oldest at the bottom. It seems minor but did cause a bit of confusion, but please could the Create Linked request process correctly update the timeline in the right order, so at the bottom (or first) update the timeline to show the Linked Request is created, then at the top (or second) update the timeline to show that the two tickets have been linked together. Of course, if the users have their timeline in reverse order, then the same principle needs to apply for that ordering. Thanks, Samuel

+1 for the visual representation of the path it took to get to the current process

+1 - we have a single bpm where different stages does different things dependent on the App it's raised for (to avoid clogging up the already massive list of BPM's). Having the ability to hide unused stages from showing (before or after) would be fab.

Hi @Berto2002, So, we are storing this information as connections so: Tech Support can send emails to assigned connection(s) by type, if they need to We can visually see the details of the connection, and it'll be easy to amend if necessary or add substitutes if someone is on leave The Business Process will be emailing these connections at various stages for example the Budget Holder needs to approve/reject the request for a Smartphone. The process uses the node "Email Connections" to cater for potential changes to the Budget Manager or New Starter Manager part-way through the process etc. Visibility of requests in the Employee Portal. For example the person raising the request may not be the New Starter's manager and/or Budget Holder. Will eventually be useful for reporting purposes. Thanks, Samuel

Good morning, I was wondering if this has been discussed internally? We had a New Starter whose "New Manager" is also the "Budget Holder" and as part of our process we send automated emails to the "New Manager" and "Budget Holder" and to other Services containing this information, but because we cannot have users defined as multiple connection types, the process errored when it attempted to assign the "Budget Holder" connection because they already existed as a "New Manager" connection.

Good morning, I am hoping this is a quick and easy implementation - as part of our New Starter request, we need to capture and update potential Returners. There doesn't seem to be any ability to remove all Organizations against a user and I'm not sure how to go about doing this as part of the Business Process. Please can I request for new Cloud Automation utility to provide the ability to remove "All Organizations" from a user, with optional fields allow users to specify an organization type. Thanks, Samuel

Brilliant stuff @Steve G! Thank you for doing that so quickly!

Just re-read what you said again, and I got what you mean now - it will still display the task rather than go straight through - so that could work.

Hi @Paul Alexander, That sounds like it would be the solution - so essentially using the node to put the ticket on-hold but if the date was in the past, the ticket would remain open due to the node being skipped - what a genius find! I'll give that a shot - thank you!

Hi, I have been struggling to work out whether a date provide in the ICF is before the system date or not. I need to be able to generate a task based on whether the Leaver is leaving in the future (then the ticket will go on-hold until that date), or to continue with the process if the user left in the past or are leaving today. Unfortunately, if the date is in the past and the expiry of the task is set to that date, then an error appears hence the need to be able to make the distinction. Using Date Difference doesn't provide a negative value regardless of whether something was in the past or in the future, so that's no good. We cannot specify our own values/variables based on conditions... for example if leaving_date < today() then 'PAST' elseif leaving_date > today() then 'FUTURE' else 'TODAY' So, I am out of options. Please can I request for there to be a utility where we can determine whether a date relative to another date is in the PAST, FUTURE or TODAY. Or if anyone has any working solutions, could this be provided. Thanks, Samuel