chrisnutt

Thanks @Martyn Houghton That gets me the DN in there, but I have to disable the manager mapping and the DN doesn't resolve to anything. I'm going to take rebuild a conf file from the latest one and try again, just in case I've changed something somewhere down the line to cause this. Chris

Thanks @conorh What is the latest version of the tool? 2.4.1. is saying there is a 2.4.2. but the link it gives cannot be found on github. Clicking on the link in this page for it also gives a 404 - https://github.com/hornbill/goLDAPUserImport Chris

Thanks @Gerry, @Martyn Houghton Useful info that while not solving the scenario above answers some of the other examples I could have given. However... I have a separate problem with that field that @conorh was looking at but I haven't heard anything for a while: Chris

Sorry @Victor I have gone through the data and added correction details that I'll talk through with our Director and Head of Department. So there is no immediate urgency. Ideally, it would be good to resolve before the end of the month. Chris

Hi, There are many situations that I have come across where people want/need visibility of requests raised by other people. One such example is our Contact Centre raising faults that stem from Finance issues with our systems. Finance contact the Contact Centre to investigate and then the Contact Centre raise a fault when they find one. In this scenario, Finance needs to be kept informed. The connections feature is nice, but it doesn't lend itself to the portal as far as I know. Is that possible? Is it something that can be enabled? Or is there another way I haven't thought of/noticed? We have other scenarios where departments want visibility of others requests purely because we have a lot of casual staff members who are not here all the time. Put simply, I would like the ability to be able to make some requests (by service or by business process) visible on the Portal for someone other than the customer. Thanks Chris

Thanks @Victor I have my monthly review with the Head of IT and Finance Director on Thursday morning. It would be really good to have an explanation for this - even if it is something I've done wrong (from their point of view, especially if I've done something wrong I'd expect!). I understand if not though, just looking to have my expectations set I guess. Chris

Thanks both, @Victor your suggestion has worked. Thank you very much, that was stressing me out! Chris

Hi, I'm trying to improve some email templates using ESP Conditions but I am having some difficulty. First of all, in my progressive capture I have set the attached to go into h_custom_a. However, the display value is what is populating the database and not the value. This leads onto my second problem. Can the ESP Conditions use text? I've done an ESP Condition that says {{.H_custom_a}} = "No" and {{.H_custom_a}} = 'No' and even {{.H_custom_a}} = No None of which seem to work; the lines that I want to show when the 'No' option has been selected (so making the above condition true) do not appear at all. Am I making a mistake? Thanks Chris

Hi, I'm noticing some odd response behaviour on some of our requests. For example, we have an incident with a medium priority. The medium priority should have a response time of 4 hours, which it does when I look at it. However, it says it failed after 2 hours. Looking at the amend service level on that incident (attached) I can see it has got two response times. One is two hours, so it makes sense that it failed on the earlier one however that is a completely phantom service level as far as I can make out. I am also seeing these phantoms on high priority incident and major incident service levels We are having a push on getting our response levels up to as close to 100% as possible and things like this are, during report review time, at best embarrassing. For anyone at Hornbill wanting to check the request in question is IN00072015 but I think it is happening to others too. Any ideas? Thanks

Thanks @Victor I did notice this the other day.

Hi All, I have raised this before: I really feel, along with the rest of Hornbill users here, that the search is extremely poor. I am never able to find anything with it. See the attached screenshot. The number of things wrong here is staggering. I am aware of the advanced filtering options you mention @Lyonel and I am aware of some more advanced syntax mentioned in the above thread, but even using those the problems are significant. Here is a list of my issues: I am unable to add date and time info in the advanced filters you mention for logged or resolved dates I am unable to sort the results in any kind of order. I would like to sort by type, I would like to sort by reference number, I would like to sort by status, I would like to sort by customer, team, owner etc... I am unable to change the view here so I see only info that I want to - for example, changing it to a one request per line view similar to the Request List There is no clear order to the listed requests so I have to waste time going through page after page When I have raised this before I have been advised to use views in the Request List, but I really don't think that is suitable for quick on the fly searches and necessitates a spring cleaning exercise of your views. It makes me wonder why the search is included in the first place if we are to use views. Consider the difference, I want to search for requests that mention the word NAL in them raised since 28 December (what I am trying to do this morning). In a search that allows me to do the things I mention above, I type in NAL and set log date to 28 December and after. I hit search, and I sort the very short list by reference and or team to review the info. Total time, 5 to 10 seconds. I used to do this all the time in Supportworks to great effect. With the views, I click on views click "Add New", have to think of a name for the view, add a condition by looking for log date in the list, can't find it so go through each option before realising it is called "Raised On", set it to after 00:00 on 28 December, add another condition, choose Summary contains "NAL", and Save, then Close. I realise that no results are returned so I return to my view config and change summary to Description because I can't do 'OR' in the criteria, re-enter NAL and get a list of requests for me to sort through. After I have finished, I have to remember to delete the view. Total time about 3+ minutes. It doesn't sound like much but in a pressured situation with people hovering over you it is horrid. Quite honestly, I am extremely frustrated with it this morning as you can tell because I am hunting for a request that may or may not have been raised and the search is, as always, useless. I'm sorry for saying that but it really does let the tool down massively. Chris

Yep, this happens to me too and I usually have the same reaction mentioned here.

Hi, I have managed to figure this out myself. It was actually very simple (when you know how). All you had to do was get the request details just before you stop the response timer and then start parallel processing. In the parallel processing, alongside stopping the clock simply have an automated task that updates a custom field with the assigned team from the get details. See attached, (moving from right to left). Then all that is required to get what I want is run a report of requests breaching response and look at the custom field. I do have to say though, I was very disappointed with the lack of response from Hornbill on this query, especially as it turned out to be so simple. Chris

Hi, Is it possible to get an answer? Thanks Chris

Hi, I have a question regarding the response timer and reporting on breaches. First, the scenario. We define response by the automatic email that is generated to the customer when a request has been prioritised and assigned to an individual. A lot of requests get responded to by the Service Desk, however, in some circumstances, the Service Desk pass a request onto a specific, second line team straight away, or the business process for requests raised via the Service Portal assigns straight to the second line team. In both cases, that team may pass the call onto a third line support team before it gets assigned to an individual thus triggering the response email. We are trying to track down where the response failures are happening. There should always be somebody in each of those teams checking for requests well within the Response target according to the director, but sadly there are failures somewhere. Our current report looks at what calls have breached and what team they are assigned to at a point in time (monthly) this, however, is making the third line team look bad as a lot of requests that breached response have ended up there despite them failing in the second line team. How can I get a report (or advanced analytic) that tells me exactly where a request has failed response (or resolve for that matter)? I have had a look at other forum posts and the wiki and I haven't been able to find anything. I also looked at the database, but couldn't see anything relevant. I hope that makes sense - I am happy to expand/explain further. Thanks Chris

@Victor @Ehsan Thank you. I will keep an eye out for this. Chris

Ok, no worries.

Hi Ehsan, Thanks. I totally understand the reasoning behind this. It is worth mentioning though that the address messages are being sent to is doNOreply rather than doNOTreply and I wonder if this is responsible for the NDRs we are seeing? Chris

Hi, After I applied the 1101 update this morning, email notifications for requests assigned to teams/individuals have started being sent to donoreply@hornbill.com and BCC'ing all the people the email is going actually to, rather than sending emails to each person individually. This would be fine, except it is now generating Undeliverable NDR messages to our mailboxes every time saying "Unknown To Address - donoreply wasn't found at hornbill.com". Is anyone else seeing these? Can this be fixed urgently as it is clogging up the mailboxes. Thanks Chris

Thanks @Ryan That makes sense. I've updated our filter and it seems to have done the trick on the quick test report I just ran. Any ideas on timescales for when the "Value is not equal" value list will be limited to one? Thanks Chris

Hi, I am experiencing an issue with reporting. I run a report each month of requests logged into IT Services. We have a couple of non-IT services so I exclude these from the monthly report. See right-hand side of the screenshot for the filter. However, I've been scratching my head as the numbers don't quite add up. Looking into the data returned I can see there are four records returned by the report that should be excluded. See left-hand side of the screenshot. I have to present this data each month to our Director, who happens to be the Director of Finance so even the smallest discrepancy will be picked at. Am I doing something wrong or is this the system? I can't see how it's the filter. The dates for the report run in the screenshot is 1 November-30 November - however, I have to split that into two as it seems it only returns a maximum of 1000 records - another bug bear!

@TrevorKillick Yes, we have refreshed the certificate and it is now working. Thanks Chris

Thanks, Trevor. We're looking at the ADFS stuff now. I'll let you know what we find. Chris

Hi All, Over the weekend, it would appear that Hornbill has ceased working correctly. We run a dashboard from a machine using IE and that was working on Friday. This morning it is coming up with the attached after attempting log in (via ADFS). This is happening in admin, live and service. We don't use customer. It would appear that it only works in browsers that were left open over the weekend. Initially, I thought it was just affecting IE, but colleagues have opened up fresh instances in Chrome and are getting the same error. We have not recently applied any updates. Chris

Hi, I have been asked by a senior member of the IT department to explain why the Hornbill app needs access to each of the things shown in the attached image. I have been unable to find any answers on the wiki or in an existing thread. Please, can you let me know here? Many thanks Chris