AndyHill

I have set up an Authorisation element in Service Manager BPM as below with some markup. This markup display correctly with the Hornbill task but the emails the users receive advising of the authorisation are seeing the markup code Is there anyway you can correct this to display the same in both task and email? Is there another way of achieving this I am unaware of?

Hi Paul, just for your information this is definitely an issue following something in the latest updates. We closely monitor the update time on calls owned by our Service Desk (reported on daily) so if this had been around for some time we would most certainly have come across it. This issue was noticed immediately after the last build release.

@Steve Giller Thanks. Is this still only going to be pushed out in the 3rd week of March though?

Since the Service Manager updates last week when analysts are going in to tickets assigned to them they are seeing the last updated by and last updated dates change to reflect when they have opened the ticket. Normally this should only change when the analyst actually performs an action within the ticket and not simply by opening it. This is really throwing off the reporting a number of managers do to ensure analysts are keeping their tickets up to date.

Thanks for the information @Steven BoardmanWould be good if there was an email feature in the full Board Manager for when things aren't added through the automated process.

We are using boards to track defects on a current project and it would be great if when something was added to the board it could email a DL to advise of the new addition. Is there any feature like this and if not would it be possible to develop something. I would preferably want to target this on specific boards.

Anyone from Hornbill got any ideas? We need to be able to format the text without all the formatting code showing on the main page.

We are starting to develop the FAQ feature within Service Manager and I am just wondering is there any new features/developments in the pipeline? I notice at the moment that there is no central location where every FAQ regardless of Service can be viewed. You currently have to go into each Service to view the FAQ's associated. It would be useful if there was a way to view all FAQ's at once to better ascertain which are being used and which aren't. Another thought is that you can set certain FAQ's to analyst only but there doesn't appear to be a way for analysts to search for these from the analyst portal unless working on an incident raised with the associated Service.

We have added some text to our Service Descriptions with some formatting to make it stand out. It looks fine when in the Service Catalog item but then in the overview page you can actually see the markup code which doesn't look good. See examples below.

@Steve Giller I would hate to have to update all by BPM's with that but i imagine that would work. UPDATE: It appears this request is now showing correctly under the analyst. It may be because the call has now gone from Resolved to Closed. I will do some further testing. We have also had the latest batch of updates since this problem was spotted.

@Victor makes sense but is there any way to correct that for reporting purposes? The system doesn't recognise SYS_SIS_Service as a user for any views either. The Service Desk supervisor needs to be able to view his teams resolves regardless of whether the system made the final resolution or the service desk analyst did. At the very least he needs to see the SYS_SIS_Service closures when reviewing the closures performed by the team.

I have configured one of our BPM's to automate the closure of a request when an ITOM operation completes. The whole process works fine but when you run a report on the team to show resolves/closures the request does not display. If I run a report on the the person i know was the owner of the call it displays the resolve under the account SYS_SIS_SERVICE as below. Is there away to get this to correctly display as the owner.

Our HR system is very dated and whilst they are working on it to provide this information in to Azure and therefore in to SM it's not quite there yet so we have to allow the users to identify it for us. EDIT: Even when we have managers in place we would still have the need for a secondary authorisation from a director in some instances at which point need a way of allowing users to select from an approved list of directors and then also having the auto assign authorisation node use that selection.

We have a number of BPM's that make use of the Auto Assign Authorisation nodes, for these BPM's we ask the user to identify their line manager in the progressive capture. Is there any way to therefore automate the addition of this name from the PC for that Auto Assign Authorisation node rather than having to have the analyst add the name manually? I have tried used the regular authorisation node which allows you to set a variable for who its assigned to but that just report backs that it doesn't recognise the user. For the progressive captures mentioned above we restrict the selection process using the Data Query -> Search Colleagues feature which is great but is there anyway to have the ability to select from a custom list as we have certain service requests that need line manager approval and then director approval. Both our line managers and directors come up under the search colleagues feature as both have the authoriser role.

We are no longer able to login with Single Sign On since the restart.

+1 same issue with our instance too.

All we appear to be having issues with raising new calls at the moment. If our progressive capture contains two data queries for colleagues then we get the below error (this worked fine yesterday) We are also seeing other progressive captures not loading at all and just the hornbill spinning logo as below.

It would be really good if there was an ability to create a specific part of a BPM that is used in more than one location and then call it from within an existing BPM. Not only would this save on time but also on clutter within a BPM. This would also be really nice for the ITOM/Automation Tasks stuff as that can be quite a large BPM in of itself so to be able to have that created elsewhere and then just called would be great. As an example we are going to be automating more AD group membership calls and when the AD automation succeeds we will have the call close itself off. This would be changing all our BPM's to add in the four Honrbill Automation steps to get customer details, get the category, set the resolve text and then set the status to resolve. If instead this could be pulled out and then called in one node that would be a massive improvement.

@HHH Thanks for the response and sorry for the late reply. Hadn't noticed it

Ok i will have to raise a support request as I have been through the troubleshooting and nothing has change on the .json file or our Site information in Hornbill in a long time it just simply stopped working.

Nice spot but sadly that is not the reason for the fault. Just a bad copy/paste job on my part Even with the 'y' I am still getting the same error in the logs.

Not sure when this started but it appears to have been ongoing for a few weeks now. When new users are imported the site information is longer imported with them. I have tried using the most up to date Azure Import tool as well as previous versions and regardless of what tool I use the site information is no longer populating to the user. 2020/10/31 01:28:50 [DEBUG] 2020/10/31 01:28:50 [DEBUG] Looking Up Site: <nil> 2020/10/31 01:28:50 [ERROR] Unable to Search for Site: The specified primary entity [Site] was not found 2020/10/31 01:28:50 [DEBUG] Site Lookup found ID: If I populate one of the custom attributes with .physicalDeliverOfficeName then it displays correctly a value that matches what is in Hornbill so the problem is not with pulling the information out of Azure.

Is there anyone from Hornbill that can answer this question? Even if only a rough idea of what the future holds.

Does anyone know the specific database permission that would provide a user with the ability to reassign a human task. I want to provide this ability to our Service Desk personnel for when a task is assigned incorrectly or needs to be reassigned due to illness/out of office. I don't want to grant them too much access so need this to be as granular as possible.

@Gerry spot on. Thanks. Some of our analysts disappear very quickly