Aaron Carter

@Steve GillerThanks, the prepend option will fork for us. I can create 5 custom inputs on the request where we can enter the ids. I have a couple of implementation questions that you may be able to help with? Can the prepend be an update triggered by input into the field? e.g. when the first field is entered, it triggers the link to be prepended. My understanding is that this wouldn't be possible due to how business processes progress? When copying the line above into the update column, the link replaces the input value rather than prepending it. I'm updating the fields after closure as an automated task in the BPM. screenshot attached. am I doing something wrong? why is it replacing and not prepending? This is the line in the maunal update: link&[global["flowcoderefs"]["fcres"]["customFieldG"]] where link is the url to prepend

@Steve Giller We want record links to our changesets in source control, ideally only adding the changeset id for the upload. The link is consistent with the changeset id appended to the end. This way all our code changes made for a request can be seen in a single location on the hornbill request

Hello, I've been asked to look into something for my team and am not sure if it is possible to achieve or where to start. We want to add a field that accept number values to requests that are stored and displayed appended to a consistent href and create a valid link. The idea is that we add the list of numbers and the field in the request shows a list of links we can click on is this something that's possible and if so, a bit of direction on how to start configuring this would be great thanks Aaron

When using the email customer feature, and when customers reply to emails, is it possible to notify any request members? Members would receive the same email sent to the customer and would receive customer responses. How can this be set up? thanks

@Gerry BPM 2.0 - that sounds exciting! is there a current time frame for when this will be released? I'd like to know how long we will need to make the current BPM work to determine what sort of work arounds/process changes we should make thanks Aaron

Thanks @Steven Boardman, that's great to hear is there a timeframe on when this will be available? thanks Aaron

@Victor Ah it's as I feared, it chokes on the first 'wait for' it encounters Are there any plans to allow this sort of business process? either a parallel process that handles multiple 'wait for' nodes and will progress if any processes complete (as @HHH suggested), or perhaps a single 'wait for' node that accepts a list of processes, progressing when any have been updated? This would add tremendous value in allowing me to create processes that match my company's procedures thanks Aaron

Thanks for the info @Steven Boardman, It's good to know this is being fixed. I remain concerned about the concept that it is ok to build progressive captures that don't interact with business processes without warning. The priority isn't mapped across so why is the box visible in the employee portal and why is there no warning of this lack of interaction? It would be nice to at least separate out forms that only work in certain areas of hornbill so it is clear what can and cannot be used. Otherwise, we waste time on head-scratching "but it should be working!" scenarios that nobody enjoys. Was I misinformed on the reason for the priority mapping? From your response it sounds more as though there are complications that need workarounds to implement the feature vs. it being an active decision not to allow customers to do this. thanks Aaron

@Victor Thanks for the response. I tried something that leverages parallel processing to achieve this, from my understanding it should work but maybe there are elements to the parallel processing that I don't understand. Here is the BPM: The idea is that we mark the response timer on the first event of either sending an email to a customer or resolving a ticket. Because our resolution pathway includes sending an email to a customer, I thought I could use parallel processing. If an email was sent to a customer, it marks the response timer and waits for the resolution process. If a ticket is resolved, it completes the resolution pathway and kicks of the email > mark response timer path. both paths then complete and the BPM progresses to the next stage. Hope that makes sense however, when I tested this by creating then resolving a ticket, none of the resolution pathway processes were executed. I was the customer and didn't receive any emails and the checkpoint of 'resolution provided' wasn't marked. Checking the BPM for this ticket showed it was on 'wait for email'. Do you know why the resolution pathway wasn't executed as I'd expect in parallel processing? thanks Aaron

Hello, I was stumped by an issue where I could add a 'Priority' form to a progressive capture used through the employee portal, map the response priority to the request priority in the subsequent business process, but the priority on the created request would not be set. I was told by a hornbill rep last week that this is because the priority field is not synced as a development decision when customers raise requests. The decision reason given was that customers can't be trusted to accurately define a priority as anything other than high (an odd reason considering customers choose a priority when raising a support ticket to Hornbill - I noticed this during this mornings' errors). I am unsure as to why this decision is made for us and is not properly expressed during the progressive capture and business process. To make this more frustrating, the form actually appears when creating a ticket through the employee portal and lets you select a priority without issue. This is extremely misleading. If there are any more cases of black box logic, is there a way to make them visible during set up? it will save time and frustration We were shown a very labor intensive workaround for this, using custom forms in the progressive capture and decisions trees to map priorities in the business process to the custom form responses. This makes what should be an automated mapping something that needs manual handling and upkeep in nearly every business process and progressive capture we use. Please can the priority forms used in the employee portal map to the request? Thanks Aaron

hi @Victor I am familiar with suspend automations and have used them. the problem is when a process needs to wait for an email OR a request but not both. As soon as one of these two fields has been updated, the business process should continue. Have I missed the part in the linked documentation that explains how to do this? thanks Aaron

Hello, Is it possible to have a business process wait for any of multiple activities on a ticket? e.g. wait for email or update or resolution then progress if either have been completed. Sometimes an email or update isn't required before we progress to resolution but we still want to mark the response timer based on the first email or resolution. thanks Aaron

Hello We recently migrated over to hornbill for our helpdesk system and the team are consistently finding the lack of category on the request list a major frustration. Prioritizing work based on the category is very important and not getting a quick up-to-date view of what categories each of our tickets are is a problem. It was part of our old system and has become an integral part of our processes. Please could this be added? I realise this was requested a few years ago under the attached topic, however the proposed solutions do not fit our needs. Thanks Aaron

Hello @James Ainsworth, I'm raising my hand as another customer who would like this change. It's something the team has requested, I was surprised to find it is not already implemented. It would definitely provide a lot of great business process options!

Hello, I was browsing the wiki for information on how to build reports, specifically this page: https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Write_Efficient_Reports It references the application entity viewer about mid-way through with the following line: I've highlighted the section that confused me - is it still the case that the application entity viewer is still in development and incorrect in places? I can't find reference to being in development on the wiki page for the application viewer (https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php?title=Application_Entity_Viewer), or when I visit the application entity viewer itself. Is the in Development line an outdated wiki page or is it correct? Thanks