davidrb84

We have a process where a user will not have access to their primary email account (due to Google thinking it was compromised) but where we want to be able to communicate with them via email (or at least notify them of updates) Contacts have alternative emails address fields, but co-workers do not. Also would it be possible to be able to determine in an email notification bpm node that you might want to send the email to both primary and alternative email addresses.

Would anyone else support the idea of a type of connection that defaults to being included in 'emails' i.e. would populate the TO: or BCC: fields. This would accommodate the desire to cc an account manager, or PA, or other interested party when notifying the main customer. I'm aware it's easy to add to the TO: field based on connection type, just have to remember to do it!

Hi there, I wonder if anyone else would like the ability to be able to toggle visibility of services on the service portal, but still be able to allow customers to see their raised requests/incidents in the Active Requests section. We have 30 or so 'forms' that allow customers to raise specific requests, but many more services that we would only expect customers to raise via the service desk. Currently we've had to artificially force the order, but it's a messy solution.

@Ehsan hi there, is there any progress on this?

@Victor Sorry victor, also can't find it for the life of me. I'm confident the post indicated that if the import failed, we should set force=true. This should then complete successfully, resetting the flag to 'completed successfully'. This also mirrors what we had in the email from before. Regardless of the original post, this appears to be the issue we've been trying to address now for 3 months. We are now running with no new staff/students, which is proving painful. How would be best to proceed?

Hi @Victor we've run a force run of a small number of users, this was successfully, however, a run of the full batch soon afterwards failed stating an import was already running. Message from Infrastructure team "the single user import ran successfully (with the forcerun=true setting) but the next import (with forcerun=false) failed with the 'previous import is still running' message" Is our next course of action to run the full (large) import with force=true. Given this is not the behaviour described in other posts I'm cautious to do it without Hornbill agreement.

I wonder if anyone else thinks it would be useful to be able to pass PCF answers as parameters in the URL. This could be used where some context could be automatically (and perhaps concretely) be established. e.g. a report a broken web page link could include the url (or some reference)

+1

@Steven Boardman thanks for this, I'll use this in the interim, and thank-you for raising the pinning internally.

Hi, Would anyone else find it useful to be able to pin workspace posts to the top of the stream. We use it to keep information that's more transient than we might use an FAQ item for. But sometimes there's posts we would like to hang onto rather than lose down the stream as we post subsequent bits.

Apologies just seen the same issue in another thread, happy for these to be merged and I'll get this run with the force run flag set, if that seems the best approach?

Good morning, As previously discussed with cloud support we are getting an error (below) when trying to import a largish number of users. I've blanked out a few bits with XXs (let me know if you need them) For clarity we are definitely not already running an import. I assume the next step will be to run with a force run flag to true, but wouldn't like that to be confirmed as not likely to cause more worrying issues first. ___________________________________________ vault-08:/var/opt/hornbill/log # cat LDAP_User_Import_2018-09-11T21-01-01+01-00.log 2018/09/11 21:01:01 [MESSAGE] ---- XMLMC LDAP Import Utility V3.0.8 ---- 2018/09/11 21:01:01 [MESSAGE] Flag - config ldap-students 2018/09/11 21:01:01 [MESSAGE] Flag - logprefix 2018/09/11 21:01:01 [MESSAGE] Flag - dryrun false 2018/09/11 21:01:01 [MESSAGE] Flag - instanceid uopservicedesk 2018/09/11 21:01:01 [MESSAGE] Flag - apikey XXXXX 2018/09/11 21:01:01 [MESSAGE] Flag - apitimeout 60 2018/09/11 21:01:01 [MESSAGE] Flag - workers 1 2018/09/11 21:01:01 [MESSAGE] Flag - forcerun false 2018/09/11 21:01:01 [ERROR] Get https://api.github.com/repos/hornbill/goLDAPUserImport/tags: read tcp XX.XX.XX.XX:52683->192.30.253.117:443: read: connection reset by peer 2018/09/11 21:01:01 [MESSAGE] Loading Configuration Data: ldap-students 2018/09/11 21:01:01 [MESSAGE] Loading LDAP Authentication Data: 5 2018/09/11 21:01:01 [MESSAGE] Log Level 1 2018/09/11 21:01:01 [MESSAGE] Page Size 500 2018/09/11 21:01:01 [ERROR] Unable to run import, a provious import is still running ___________________________________________

@Victor way ahead of me, thanks.

@Victor oh, no. And there was me trying to be good and post in the right forum! could you move this to SM Reporting at all Victor? Don't mind relogging but don't want to duplicate.

Hi all, I've got 2 questions that you might be able to help me with. 1) Is the 1000 limit on records a hard limit or can it be overriden? 2) I'm trying to quickly produce a count on the number of calls SR/IN where Resolution time - Log time is < 1 hour. I was going to quickly dump out all incidents including these fields and do it in gsheets quickly but am limited by the 1000 cap. This was trivial in Supportworks as I knew the database structure pretty well but not used to the new SM tables yet!

thanks @victor looks good from here, are you able to give us a clue as to the cause?

@Victor when using 'email' update within a request there's no error but no timeline update is added. Not sure if this helps.

Hi @Victor, still seem to be getting this error sir, anything else I can provide to assist?

by way of an update, looks like it's logging the job but no HUD or diary entries, I suspect maybe no BPM initiated as not assigned when for this type of request I was expect it to be assigned to me (as the logger)

@Victor still getting failed to log requests unfortunately, have logged out and back in

sorry @Victor same errors here.

We are currently experiencing an error when logging jobs. "Failed to log request" Previously we had issues showing a harry hornbill error. Is there a systemic issue?

hi @Steven Boardman I appreciate it's not been long but was wondering if this had been identified as a feature or a bug? We're about to go and establish the direct links for a bunch of our 'forms', but would pause that if this is likely to change in the near future.

To your understanding would my second part be worked around by having an organisation that ALL users were part of, that we could subscribe services to, then cut that list down for particular users. It would amount to an alternative way to subscribe a service to everyone, but would enable the CI level subscriptions.

thanks @Victor my apologies, I did use the search but couldn't find those entries.