Dan Munns

Yeah, I am not sure we can whitelist *.hornbill.com I have installed it on my laptop and it works ok (typical). Just got to get discovery working now.... Wish me luck (and don't worry I will sort out the server issue tomorrow)

@Graham Sorry dashboard as in the ITOM section within the Hornbill admin console. @GerryI cannot access any Hornbill pages from the server (secure IE blocks) but the firewall rules are in place to allow the Hornbill IP addresses and it passes the test before installation OK. Is there a list of IPs I need to whitelist?

@Gerry just my 2 pence; PDQ charges per administrator rather than per device. So for PDQ inventory admin costs say £500 per year. The licence for PDQ deploy also costs £500 per year. You cant use deploy without inventory and inventory usefulness is limited without deploy so we bought licences for 5 admins for both, plus 5 inventory only licences for audits and other stuff. We looked at other stuff that was £x per device/per month but it always seemed to be a pain to manage. Obviously PDQ dont do everything ITOM does and we cant use BPMs and all rest of it but for deploying software/scripts either manually/via powershell script/schedule/mdt it works well for us (so far). Hoping to replace the whole lot with ITOM though

Hi, I am unable to pair the SIS server with our instance. I managed it once but then the server went offline and wouldnt come back up and when I navigated to the localhost:portnumber address it only showed the register screen no matter what I did. Re-pairing just left the server paired/unknown/n/a on the dashboard and the server kept reverting to the register screen. Removed the server app and rebooted the server. Reinstalled and rebooted again. Now it cant pair at all. Running on Windows Server 2012 R2 if it helps.

Oh @Victor Welcome to my "What SLA does this request need?" phase of one of my BPMs. It wont all fit on the screen at 50% zoom and the next step down is waaaaay too small (33%). I had fun building this /s I built it like this to make it easier to manage going forward. Adding/removing sections isn't too bad. I am sure there is probably a better way doing doing this, but for setting SLA based on category which goes 3 levels deep depending on what the requestor selects from the PC it works ok and is quite quick (the analysts don't see the ticket until all this has been done anyway) Edit: I think approx 180 nodes here....

Thanks @Gerry I will keep it in Prod for now and if I get any issues I will manage them as and when. Good to know a perm fix is coming though

Hi @Gerry, In this instance I am using the authorisation nodes for our Impact Assessment. We have 25 teams/departments who need to respond and each authorisation node is setup for two authorisers at 100% approval each. So, only 1 person needs to respond with the impact the proposed request will have on the team (and has been agreed who it will normally be, the second is there for redundancy if required). I have made some amendments to the workflow and it 'works' almost all the time, with only 1 instance, where me and another authoriser submitted at the exact same time and caused an issue where the data was copied into 2 fields. It is mighty slow moving from the last human task before the parallel processing to the last authorisation node in the parallel processing though (though I did expect that with the amount it is spawning): So in short, I am happy that this works for what I need, even if it was a pain to build (so much configuration to automate what used to be manual email of a spreadsheet once a week). But it means that a fair few hours per week have been saved for someone when I roll it out for another, larger process.

Thanks @Gerry I think it does use a global variable looking at it now because the flow code is identical for each one no matter what I do. I guess it is just keeping the last data entered until it is over written by the next note. Trying @Steve Giller decision node addition works, but I cant work out how to capture the 'Impacted' notes. And if two of the authorisations nodes are done really close it is hit and miss which notes it takes. This has definitely been one of the most frustrating BPMs I have had to build so far. I am so close to the end as well

@Gerry this is a new BPM that is all fine bar this (Sod’s law I suppose). @Steve Giller, so even though there is only 1 authorisation node per lane from the start of the parallel processing, and all the authorisation nodes are different it can still interfere? As I said, if I put a reason into each authorisation they map fine. I thought that the nodes in a BPM could only ‘see’ the other nodes along the same track so how are these separated nodes seeing other tracks data? Sorry to be a pain, I’m just trying get my head around how it all works as I am going to have a few of these kind of workflows to do in the coming weeks.

Hi, I am having an issue with parallel processing a number of authorisations and capturing the reasons for each one. So (buckle in this is a long one) I first of all update 25 custom fields to hold the text 'None'. I then start parallel processing and have 25 authorisation nodes, followed by 25 get authorisation detail nodes, followed by 25 update custom field nodes before finally closing the parallel processing. The update custom field nodes each update a single custom field. The first node after the parallel processing finishes is a Get Request Information node so that the responses can be emailed via a template. If all the authorisation nodes have a reason added then all custom fields are updated correctly and the template is good. If any of the authorisations don't have a reason, then the 'None' text should be left as is, however this is not the case. It seems the 'None' nodes are picking up the reasons from other authorisations nodes but I cant see why this is the case. The BPM looks like this: In the email template IT Security should say 'IT Sec Stuff' and the others should all say 'None' but they have taken the info from the IT Sec authorisation/custom field: I cant seem to work out why this is happening, as it only happens to the ones that have no reason (if the user selects 'No impact' for which I am using 'accept' then reason is optional, if the user selects 'Impacted' (refuse) then reason is mandatory. I dont want to force a reason for both to just get different variations on 'None'. I need to be able to report on the 'None' replies which is why I am doing it this way) So TL:DR....HELP!! Thanks Dan

hi, We are suddenly getting the following message when trying to access the instance: All services show as operational on the status page, though on the support page is shows as failed

@Steven Boardman stop on, thanks! Didn't realise this config was hiding away under collaboration (though it makes sense now I think about it). Thanks again.

Hi, I have an issue where I need to use the authorisation reason as a variable to update a custom field. This isn't currently possible however so can anyone suggest a workaround or can someone from Hornbill add me to/create a change for this functionality please? Thanks, Dan

Ok, so I can see the new field in the h_sys_accounts table, just nowhere else. Is this just phase one of a two part change?

Hi, I noticed the ESP update notes last night: I am assuming that I should be able to see the new field in the user account page? And also the Data Import page as well? I am also assuming that this is not visible because our instance hasn't been updated yet (I have cleared cache and all the other stuff to try and get it to show). If this is the case can I request our instance is updated ASAP. I really need to get this change in as soon as possible. Thanks, Dan

Can we also have all of the custom fields added as well please?

Hi, Can we have Change Type added in the condition builder for creating views please? This will make it a lot easier to create views around changes as at the minute I have to remember to add the change type to a custom field in the BPM for all change type requests. Thanks Dan

Thats what tripped me up. I'll wait until it is implemented then

Thanks @NeilWJ That will make my reporting a lot easier

+1 And link back to my post:

@James Ainsworth I have the admin role but still had to add all the mailboxes so I could see them in the service portfolio. I think a new role for managing all mailboxes but not having rights on them all would be the best solution.

@James Ainsworth as long as I can manage the mailboxes when creating services without having full access that will be fine. I am assuming I can just create a role with 'Manage mailbox' and add each mailbox to that role? Or are you talking about a role that just lets you manage all mailboxes?

@James Ainsworth that seems reasonable. It the moment I have access to all mailboxes so when I am creating new services I can just add what I need to. I makes the unread emails notification more than useless though as we have something like 16 mailboxes in various states of management. Not to mention all the mails I could read (not that I have the time or inclination but you know) Is this something I can set up now, or does something need doing at your end to allow this?

Well one thing is absolute. It don't work

Ticket raised. I was hoping it was a 'this is missing' fix to be honest but we have used the same API call to log requests before with no issues. The only difference here is we are putting urls in the description.