Lyonel

Thanks @Gerry for the update ! That was quick Any news on the windows 7 CORS issue? Are we the only customers impacted?

Hi, Any idea how I can apply a date time range selector on a "timestamp" database field? Thanks!

I would also be interested in contextual analyst name as this has been one of the biggest complaint over last month 9 month

Ok so new piece of evidences sent by email (too big to post here) but in a nutshell here is an extract of the console log on a machine impacted SEC7118: XMLHttpRequest for https://eurapi.hornbill.com/crown/xmlmc/session/?method=getApplicationStrings required Cross Origin Resource Sharing (CORS). File: newsfeed SCRIPT12057: WebSocket Error: Network Error 12057, It was not possible to connect to the revocation server or a definitive response could not be obtained. SCRIPT7002: XMLHttpRequest: Network Error 0x2ee4, Could not complete the operation due to error 00002ee4. File: newsfeed SCRIPT7002: XMLHttpRequest: Network Error 0x2ee4, Could not complete the operation due to error 00002ee4. File: newsfeed SCRIPT7002: XMLHttpRequest: Network Error 0x2ee4, Could not complete the operation due to error 00002ee4. File: newsfeed SCRIPT7002: XMLHttpRequest: Network Error 0x2ee4, Could not complete the operation due to error 00002ee4. File: newsfeed SEC7118: XMLHttpRequest for https://eurapi.hornbill.com/crown/xmlmc/session/?method=isSessionValid required Cross Origin Resource Sharing (CORS). File: newsfeed TranslatorService.loadStrings -> Unable to load strings for prefixes: ui.app.com.hornbill.docmanager.main.*$ Could not connect to server (Error code: -1) "TranslatorService.loadStrings -> Unable to load strings for prefixes: " [ 0: "ui.app.com.hornbill.docmanager.main.*$", length: 1 ] "Could not connect to server (Error code: -1)" TranslatorService.loadStrings -> Unable to load strings for prefixes: ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.leftMenu.*$,user.view.leftMenu.*$,ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.pageTitles.*$,user.view.dropdown.*$,status.*$,user.view.raise.new.*$,user.view.privacy.visibility.*$,user.view.applyToRequest.*$,user.view.raise.fromPost$,user.view.raise.fromEmail$,user.view.applyToRequest.*$,user.view.request.moreInfo.*$,user.shortcuts.quicksearch.*$,ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.servicePortfolio$,user.view.request.facet.*$ Could not connect to server (Error code: -1) "TranslatorService.loadStrings -> Unable to load strings for prefixes: " [ 0: "ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.leftMenu.*$", 1: "user.view.leftMenu.*$", 2: "ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.pageTitles.*$", 3: "user.view.dropdown.*$", 4: "status.*$", 5: "user.view.raise.new.*$", 6: "user.view.privacy.visibility.*$", 7: "user.view.applyToRequest.*$", 8: "user.view.raise.fromPost$", 9: "user.view.raise.fromEmail$", 10: "user.view.applyToRequest.*$", 11: "user.view.request.moreInfo.*$", 12: "user.shortcuts.quicksearch.*$", 13: "ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.servicePortfolio$", 14: "user.view.request.facet.*$", length: 15 ] "Could not connect to server (Error code: -1)" TranslatorService.loadStrings -> Unable to load strings for prefixes: user.view.newsfeed.*$,user.view.workspace.list.*$ Could not connect to server (Error code: -1) "TranslatorService.loadStrings -> Unable to load strings for prefixes: " [ 0: "user.view.newsfeed.*$", 1: "user.view.workspace.list.*$", length: 2 ] "Could not connect to server (Error code: -1)"

Thanks all! I am trying my best on my side to get some feedback from my colleagues, but it has proven to be far more challenging than I expected ...

I think it's because I opened a BPM editor. I started noticing a drop in my machine performance around the same time

Just so that we are clear, this is what I get after closing my instance where I was in Hornbill Service Desk: Released immediately the 1.5 Gb of RAM

@Daniel Dekel regarding the performances, I noticed something troubling: Looks like the memory problem is not just limited to IE... Do you want me to raise a call or a new thread for this?

Turns out most (if not all) of the machines impacted are running Windows 7. Took me a while to determine that, sorry about it

@Gerry, @Daniel Dekel, testing from other locations could be challenging but I will ask a few people to try at home tonight. Here is the PingCheck against our instance: Only IE seems to be impacted. I will run a network trace on a machine impacted and come back to you.

@Daniel Dekel The problem started appearing last week (on Wednesday) and did not experience any issues myself at home on my personal laptop (so totally outside the company network)

@Daniel Dekel unfortunately Edge, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, etc... none of these browsers are an option. Only IE 11 is supported and the standard browser for our company (yes I know it is not good BUT that is how things work in a big corporate company). The strange thing about the connection error message is that it happens only with Internet Explorer, regardless of the proxy settings (old or new) and it seems to happen constantly for those affected. Others do not have the problem... As for the memory issue, I noticed a considerably degraded performance on IE following recent releases. Is it possible that you have a memory leak (or something similar) due to the latest changes? something that new browsers would be able to cope with but not older versions (like IE 11)?

@Daniel Dekel our company standards is IE 11: In terms of OS, it is a mix of Windows 7 and 10 (all machines patched to the latest versions / patches - mainly thanks to the ransomware attacks in the last few weeks)

Good morning, I have many of my colleagues complaining about a couple of serious issues when using the Hornbill platform via Internet Explorer: 1. They get "Could not connect to server (Error code: -1) => this is probably related to the change of proxy we did recently. Could anybody confirm? 2. A HUGE amount of memory is being consumed! This slows down considerably machines... IMPORTANT NOTE: None of these issues happen with Chrome or Firefox (incl. issue #1) Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks!

Thanks @Gerry and @Chaz for looking into it Just to be 100% clear I am very much aware of the complexity regarding this topic (especially the interpretation of the images in an email). I can't think of a viable technical solution to solve this problem, except changing the UI to "force / hint" the user to review the attachments when raising / updating a request from an email. If you need more details, feel free to ask! I am more than happy to help

Great thanks @Mohamed for the super quick response!

Thanks @Mohamed for the good news! I know it looks like a silly request but I am 200% confident this will help me and other users When can we expect to see the helper text available? (Just so that I can plan the communication to my colleagues).

Thanks @Mohamed , my colleagues would really appreciate that

Just a separate note on this one: for the time being, should my other request below be granted, I could simply store the team id in a custom field and it would already help a lot. But I still believe having such feature "out of the box" (optional of course!) would be a much better and stable way of doing things.

Hi again, Another request which would help us considerably from a support / maintenance of BPMs point of view: a "default" assignment team per catalog item (OR service if not possible) Let me explain why first: 1. we do not use "Supporting teams" as any support team must be able to view and interact with any requests logged on the portal 2. calls are automatically assigned to a team via the BPM as we do not have a traditional 1st line support The consequence of this at the moment is a very very long BPM: Should we have a "default assignment team" field available at catalog item level (ideal scenario) we would not need this at all and the service owners would be able to maintain that themselves (meaning less work for the admin!) - and yes it changes quite regularly! The idea is simple: this field would be optional. If a value is set, then the assignment would be done "automatically" unless explicitly specified in the BPM. IMPORTANT NOTE: this logic should be applied AFTER the existing logic around "Supporting Teams" as we do not want to break existing setups. Another important point: this field would ONLY be used for call assignment and nothing else! No "security" related context or anything like that. It would just be a basic optional x-ref for call assignment task. A less ideal scenario (but still workable) would be to have this at the service level (and then I would only need to override is some rare cases directly in the BPM using the catalog item id). Would this be of any use to anybody else? Or are we just bonkers in my company?

Hi, Another request from me today: could we get a "Get service details" option in the automated task below: It would be incredibly useful for me (and probably other customers / users) if we could access the service details as I could really use the following fields in my BPMs: - Custom fields - Service Owner - Visibility Thanks !

Hi again, Still following Hornbill Insight 2017 event, I have another suggestion to make: due to how my company is structured and operate, we have IT service owners that look after the services (i.e. catalogue items, FAQs, bulletins, change control, etc.) but we also have a real need to a "Business" service owner or Business Key contact. Indeed, this person is actually owning the service from a business perspective whereas the IT service owner is only responsible for the support of the service. Let me give you a bit more details on our need. We have an internal "application portal" made up of 60+ custom / home made web applications. Each one has a specific business purpose (e.g. Sales, Logistics, HR processes, etc.) and each app has a Business Process owner who is responsible for the functional side of the application as well as administration / maintenance of some application data. As such, these people would like to know what type of calls are being raised to either intervene themselves (by posting on the request via the service portal) or simply keeping track on what is going on and make sure no stupid changes are requested for example. This would help us a lot on a daily basis as we get a request from such "Business service owners" at least once a month (if not more regularly) and they always complain they do not have access to the call either.. In some cases, they are also very useful to us as they can prevent calls from being worked on from the beginning if they feel the problem lies with training or understanding rather than an actual bug. But remember they do not work in / for IT! That person would not need to have access to the collaboration platform or Service Desk application, but simply be able to see ALL requests logged against their service(s) in the service portal. Screen I am talking about: https://service.hornbill.com/<instance>/servicemanager/service/<service id>/requests/ I know that now a manager can see the calls logged by any direct reportee (and we have implemented that) but this is not enough in our case... They would also need access to the requests against "their" service obviously so that they can review the request and post on the timeline if need be. Ideally this would be a new field in the service setup screen, with a new panel and people picker from the entire list of users (including basic users): What do you think? Is that something possible? Does it make sense? Would anybody else be interested in this feature?

Hi, When creating a new bulletin for a service, it is quite difficult to size properly the image so that the content looks good. Many (if not all) of my colleagues are complaining about this and therefore do not post bulletins. It is not a good excuse I would agree but at the same I cannot blame them. In my opinion (and as discussed with some developers yesterday at the Hornbill Insight 2017 event) a very simple solution to this problem would be: 1. Post an official recommendation on your Wiki or Blog about how to size perfectly an image for bulletins (that would also take into consideration coding of the carousel and how it behaves on resize!) 2. Add a small label on the screen when creating a new bulletin with the recommended size and URL to the recommendation: This should be super quick to do and help us (and many other customers I would think) make the most of bulletins. Also I am pretty sure this has been mentioned a few times on this forum...

Hi guys, Following yesterday's Hornbill Insight 2017 event, I would like to follow up on a topic we discussed: Emails, attachments and automation. Just to give you an idea of the situation, here is the first few records of a query I ran on the system: SELECT h_request_id, count(h_pk_id) as total FROM h_itsm_requests_attachments group by h_request_id order by 2 desc Now if we look at the first request, you can clearly see we have a problem... And that particular incident is still open! Now I do appreciate this is an extreme example BUT the point remains as you will from the stats below: Now the problem comes from our corporate standard e-mail signature (over which we do not have any control!) as it includes a number of images: Every single email we send internally / externally will contain this signature (if the client used to send the email is outlook). I picked an average request raised from an e-mail to show you the impact: Every attachment to this request but 1 is an image from the signature. None of them of relevant to the request except a screenshot... But which one is the relevant one ??? Another example: Actual email (extract): As you can see from this example (one amongst many!), we have a lot of attachments with meaningless names and only 2 of them are relevant to the issue experienced by our customer. IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS for our setup: 1. We do not create automatically requests upon email reception. They are created manually by operators 2. Emails with a reference to an existing requests will automatically update the request Let's summarise the issues we are facing: 1. When creating a new request from an email, the "attachments" section of the progressive capture get's "by-passed", meaning the operator does not get prompted to remove some of them The problem is that operators raising calls will not follow instructions and got back to the attachments to remove the signature related images... And even if they did (which I repeat most of them don't! Even if we repeat 10000000000000 times), this is what they get: No exactly very explicit is it? You need to download each image on your machine, open the file and then decide what to do with the attachment... Mega time consuming hence why they don't bother. 2. The link between the email and Progressive Capture: when raising a request from an e-mail, you need to fill in the default "summary" and "description" fields for the request in the PC. Why can't it be imported from the email? That would save a LOT of time and prevent many mistakes! 3. Every time an email is applied to a request manually, we get a nice pop-up where we can choose the attachments to include: This is great BUT only available when applying to the request... And again which one of these attachments is relevant? (Note: I have a screenshot somewhere in the list!) 4. Every time an email is applied to a request automatically (using email automation), attachments this time are NOT included?? Note that no "attachments" section is displayed Actual email: This email also includes my "corporate standard email signature" so I would have expected a minimum of 5/6 images! 5. How can I delete 24 out of the 26 attachments of a request without wasting 30 minutes of my time? I can't right now... I understand this is a lot to take in but as discussed yesterday all these "small issues" to you are actually a big deal when trying to resolve calls on a daily basis. I might have some suggestions on how to improve this: Attachments preview: this would be a game changer !!! - Images preview should be very easy to implement (although you might want to build thumbnails to speed things up which I can understand requires a bit more time to develop) - PDF preview should not be very complicated either to implement - Other types of documents: I can understand this is a more tricky business (and I would personally understand if it was excluded from the scope of any development) Issue 1: - fix the "by-passing" of the attachments - alike the "apply to request", show the modal with the attachments to consider BEFORE going into the PC? - preview attachments (on "hover" or by default in the screen) would considerably help too! Issue 2: - find a way to link email.subject and email.body to request.subject and request.description in a progressive capture (by default) but still overrideable by analysts Issue 3: - Preview attachments would literally solve this issue! In this particular example, having it inline with the name of the attachment would be better than "hover" BUT User Experience (UX) should be considered Issue 4: - Is it a bug? Is it supposed to work like that? Or is it just me being stupid and having a wrong setting somewhere?/ Issue 5: - we need some sort of mass delete button that would display all attachments in a scrollable modal window with preview of the attachments, a "select / unselect all" button, checkboxes for all attachments (unchecked by default) and a "delete all" button (which confirmation just to be on the safe side!) Sorry for the length of this post but I cannot possibly imagine being the only customer having these issues with regards to attachments, emails and automation. We spent a lot of time yesterday discussing it with a few Hornbill developers and I know there are simple solutions available which would not require that much time to code, test and deploy. But they would make a massive difference to us on a daily basis.

Sweet!!!! That's a fabulous news @Ehsan, not just for me but for all other users. Very pleased to hear that