Keith

Hi @Ehsan, I'll try and clarify further. 1. User A is the Request Owner, the Task Owner and the Task Assignee. 2. User A reassigns the Request to User B 3. User B can not do anything with the associated Task which his still in ownership of User A. Ideally, we would like the owner of the task to switch to User B when reassigned. Or at least give user B ability to manage/complete the activity. FYI - User B could be in a completely different team. Hope this helps. Keith

Hi @Ehsan, I had seen the other thread and offered my support and believe our requirement to be similar to @Martyn Houghton's. There is no security risk in what we are trying to achieve. If there is, it is more likely to be the reverse of what you suspect. We have activities for SOX compliance and FDA compliance and these should ideally be completed by the person carrying out the work. If the request is reassigned, these open tasks should also be reassigned or the new owner should have the ability to "grab" and complete these tasks. Keith

Hi @Daniel Dekel is there a way for me to create such a role. This is one of our biggest issues. We have compliance activities that get created as part of the business process flow. The owner of the task gets set to the owner of the request. After investigating the request he decides he needs to reassign the request to another team/owner. That new owner can then not update the task. Thanks Keith

Hi, I am trying to figure out if it is possible to create a role that would allow one user to change another users tasks. We need to be able to change the owner of a task. Thanks Keith

We find the request popup quite useful when hovering over requests in the request list. Would it be possible to have the same functionality when hovering over request number in an activity? Thanks for considering Keith

Thanks @Victor that would be appreciated.

@Victor It seems this is working for newly created requests. But what about those that are already created were the site shows undefined? Will they be corrected?

@Victor Well I didn't see the button but am excited for that functionality

@Victor I reverted the changes yesterday after the issue was resolved. Strangely today I see a new update for 2.38.0 which I had applied yesterday. Keith

@Victor, We are noticing this too.

@Victor I have tested the creation of requests with attachments and it seems to be working. I have just notified users to resume raising requests with attachments. Will let you know if the issue reoccurs.

Doh!! Showing my newbie credentials - Thanks!! I think this has resolved the problem.

@Victor Sorry! Not unless I'm looking in the wrong place

@Victor Still nothing as of 15:15.

@Victor At approx 13:25 I changed autoUpdate.maintenanceWindow to 14:00-18:00 but as yet the system has not updated. Did I misunderstand when this will be updated?

@Victor It was reported by Maite so assume it was her but am trying to check.

@Pamela I have now had a user report the same issue even without adding attachment

@Victor Were there any changes made to the core platform yesterday? Seems strange that this just started happening for everyone yesterday without any updates (by us users) to the system. Regards Keith

@Pamela I have now updated to 2.38 - Hope this helps locate and resolve the problem. Regards Keith

Hi @steven boardman Thanks for your response. That might be of some help but I really feel that we are unlikely to be able to do what we need to and I have been assured from day one that this would be possible. Let me fill you in on some background. Our system is shared across two operating companies which I will refer to as LMS & LBS. Each of the OpCo's have their own IT structures including IT Directors. As part of every request we as a "question" regarding which OpCo the request relates to (LMS, LBS or Shared) as well as asking for the company code of the person reporting the request (this is not site) i.e 142 equals Milton Keynes. We map the company code question to h_custom_a and the company code to h_custom_b. Almost all of our reporting needs to segmented by at least OpCo. So for instance in its simplest terms we want to be able to identity the number of open requests by OpCo. However we then need to take this further to establish at each OpCo level the various KPI's (OTD, First time fix etc.) by Site, Region, Categorisation (Request & Closure) etc. So, it seems to me that the fact that h_custom_* fields are stored in the extended table make this difficult if not impossible. Had the h_custom_a field been stored in h_itsm_requests as we were led to believe the reporting would be so easy. Hopefully I am overlooking something and what we need is not that difficult. However, what I don't quite understand is why the custom fields are not stored under the requests table. What are the h_custom_a fields in the requests table meant to contain if not the answers to the questions we map to h_custom_a? Hope this makes sense. Regards Keith

@steven boardman I've been reading this with interest regarding the storage of data in custom fields and reporting against this data. We capture the answers to a specific question in h_custom_a however I have noticed that this is actually stored in h_sm_requests_extended.h_custom_1 rather than in the h_itsm_requests table (in h_custom_a). I understand that in widgets etc I can join h_itsm_requests with h_sm_requests_extended to report upon data from the request itself and the custom data captured. However, I need to capture this information as a measure and as far as I can see there is no way to do a table join in a measure. Can you advise if there is a way around this. This is absolutely critical to our reporting needs. Thanks Keith

Hi, We are forced to use the email action to communicate with users because the Update action does not notify the user of a change. In using the email action we notice that there are two key features missing which appear to be available when creating an email by just clicking on the customers email address. So, I wonder if these features can be added to the email action function. They are: 1. Format bar - Ability to format the email (bold, italics etc) 2. Ability to past in a screenshot. (this was one of the things that my analysts were most excited about being able to do when I showed them this function within the update action. However, because we are forced to use the email action instead this benefit is lost). Would anyone else support these changes? Regards Keith

@Ehsan Seems that my requirements mirror what @Martyn Houghton needs. So I think we would be covered with the intended change. Thanks Keith

Thankfully I just found this thread as we are experiencing exactly the same issues as others with ownership of activities where requests are reassigned. Unfortunately though - It seems I have the same issue as Martyn. Our re-assignments will often be to other teams entirely who should take over ownership of the activity. Let me give an example. We are using activities for compliance requirements whereby anyone in any team may need to request Sarbanes Oxley approval. So we have an activity that asks "Is SOX Approval required". The request is routed to Team A initially for triage at which time the activity is auto created (in the current owners name). After review we assign to Team B who should then be able to action the activity to request SOX approval. So... It would seem the currently suggested improvement will not satisfy Martyn or our needs. Thanks Keith

@Dave@crown It's really interesting that as a fellow recent convert to Hornbill your experiencing most of the same issues as my team. Searching the timeline is critical for us too especially with regards compliance (our auditors will not be happy). I could probably live with searching a reduced set of data if this woudl ease the system impact concerns. What we particularly need is search of updates and emails. We also desperately need the ability to notify a user when there is an update to the request. We can not expect them to go to the portal to check. As a result we are having to use the email function constantly for user communication which is counter productive as it seems to further reduce the users likelihood to use the portal since they just reply to the mail. These two issues in particular seem critical for all users of Hornbill.