Jeremy

@lee mcdermott if this is after you have logged then I guess you would need to add some custom fields to the description of the request and then complete/update these before you can this use a custom button. The custom button could then be set so that it only appears if a particular custom field(s) are filled in, to send emails etc.

So we have ours like this e.g. mailbox = "MAILBOX NAME" AND subject LIKE "%text%" Obviously the % symbols are only needed if you are looking for something specific, if you are just looking to log all emails from that mail box then you just need the mailbox bit. Also in the reference we put [a-zA-Z]{2}[0-9]{8} @Kelvin

So for us when raising major incidents, when the priority level is chosen in the PCF there is a branch (when a certain priority is selected) that then asks the analyst to enter extra details which are then populated into custom fields so that they can be used in emails/teams updates etc. When the system permits we will also be added a Bulletin to the Employee Portal to say which systems are affected too (fingers crossed)! @lee mcdermott @Kate Sandall

@Steve Giller how do you fix this issue?

After the latest update we updated our BPM to add cards to the new boards, but it errors with the following message: This is the node that places the card: This is the board, with the column titles:

actually it seems to have migrated the board but this error still appeared

Since the latest update to Board Manager I started the process of moving over from the old version to the new one but every time I try to use the migrate tool this error appears... Doesn't seem that useful but wondered what I was doing wrong.

bump

@Paul Alexander was there ever any updates about this?

This is fine, but a lit labour intensive depending on how many pages etc you have. I was just hoping that there was an easy way to output the questions in a list the same as displayed in the system, we will look into other ways of doing this.

Would be possible to request an enhancement to allow us to be able to attach files from requests when resolving? Like the 'sending email' function, as currently we have to send the customer an email with the attachment etc in some jobs then go to the resolution tab and resolve with information like file send in previous email. Any a minor gripe but it would help us in some circumstances. Also is there any ideas of when we can send HTML responses in resolutions, so that we can use the 'Solutions' tab as it was designed?

@Steve Giller we so this for somethings but when the form is big or has multiple PCF nodes to request more than one thing this quickly falls down e.g. we have a form where you complete the first page with some details and then it asks do you want to add more and then if you do it takes you to the next node to enter more details etc, but adding this data when they may not have added any data then shows information that is not pertinent For example if someone completes this for one person then you would have this: Description User 1 Name - xxxxxxx User 1 Phone - xxxxxxx User 2 Name - User 2 Phone - If they completed two the description would be: User 1 Name - xxxxxxx User 1 Phone - xxxxxxx User 2 Name - fffffffff User 2 Phone - fffffffff But we just the first version is very distracting to the analyst. Our real world example is below: There is no data for the second set of questions as they don't need to fill in, but if we could output the questions as per the 'Questions Section' of a request we could just display the first part of the information. Hope this makes some kind of sense.....

Is there a way to output the questions that are completed in PCF nicely, we want to output the questions into an email or the description of the request easily. I know this is replicating the Questions sections but we find a lot easier in the description as we can email this to the customer as confirmation as well as being able to overwrite the information if it changes. I guess we are looking for something like 'h_questions' to output the list of questions and answers that the customer has completed.....is this possible?

@samwoo maybe we have this is in two processes our problem and known error ones, but it WORKS in the Problem one it's just the Known Error one that refuses to assign even through the process for that bit are exactly the same....it's annoying me at the moment as we are trying everything we can think of to try to fix it.

Sorry to drag up an old thread, but we are using a teams drop down in a human task (Problem management checks) and we are having problems assigning to a 'team via a variable' in the timeline it suggests that it is exporting: urn:sys:group:siteam Which is our SI Team but when we take this from the human task and enter into the variable field to assign it just skips the step and doesn't actually assign to the chosen team. We have tried putting into a custom field and again this still does not assign. Is there something that we are doing wrong? This is the BPM This is where we choose the team: This is the node where we 'assign' to the team:

@Keith Stevenson we keep track of information is where in the system e.g. custom fields etc, our 'concern' is how we cleanse these records in Service Manager. Are Hornbill producing a tool to allow us to input a name or reference number to remove all/certain fields or to blank out names, or is this something that we would have to develop ourselves via the API to look up a request and then overwrite the relevant bits in in the requests?

Is it possible to get some kind of feedback about this as we need to report back internally about this to our Governance Team, any help is apricated.

We have been asked what happens in regards to this and more generally about the GDPR provisions that are in place in Service Manager. We have a lot of students both current, alumni and prospective students that we deal with and we have to remove all references to students if they do not become students but they may have requests in the system that need to be removed obviously the request number can stay but we are wondering how we go about removing the data from the requests? Also we have obligations to remove any data about the students 6 years after they leave our institution unless it is regarding their marks, transcripts etc so again we need to have a robust plan of how we can deal with the data that is in Service Manager that is relating to these people. Would it be possible to arrange a chat with someone or if someone could let us know how this process works in Service Manager?

It was a question that was raised as we wanted to be able to pre-fill some of the options e.g. service, priority etc but I will go back to the drawing board.

also with information that is within tasks when added to the timeline we can't seem to search for answers etc

We have noticed that when searching for some information the system does not return all the data, we have serial numbers of new equipment in our system and when searching something these appear and other they do not... I wonder if someone could let me know if there is something wrong or if it's something we are doing? When searching for this serial number nothing appears in the search but it's in the timeline of a request: But some do appear and return in the search:

We have a process that we thought worked but it appears that the timers are not expiring, we have a node (see below) that places the call on hold for a year but it hasn't come off hold. These are the details of the request showing when it was logged: Is there something that has not worked or we have done wrong as we used the spreadsheet calculator that was provided by Hornbill to work out the hours etc.

So we have been exploring the 'Quick Request' logging and it appears that it doesn't work that well. Although you can set the parameters, when you actually come to use it it gets stuck at the 'Service Picker List'. I know that this is in 'Beta' but can this be looked into as this is something that could potentially save us a lot of time if it works as expected.

So we have a field that we have in the portal and in the analysts section when raising requests and the field acts differently e.g. in the portal we present a simple list and you can search: But analysts raising a request get the same box but cannot search Can this be updated so the analysts can search this box as this is very handy when presenting long lists of information.

We have been noticing this for a while we are trying to get logs to pass to Hornbill but that is proving problematic at the moment for us for a variety of reasons. But we have issues with any updates to accounts, as once the account is created when the system next does a sync it sees the existing account and decides that there is nothing to update. We are missing updates to email address, name changes and also we changed the import to include some extra information but this does not seem to be updating the new information.