[Create a list of links from input values as part of business proces]

@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

 

[Create a list of links from input values as part of business proces]

@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

[Create a list of links from input values as part of business proces]

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

[Automatically Send Emails to Request Members]

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

[How to progress a BPM if any of a set of actions has been taken]

@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

[Allow priority mapping from customer progressive capture to request]

Thanks @Steven Boardman, that's great to hear

 

is there a timeframe on when this will be available?

 

thanks

 

Aaron

[How to progress a BPM if any of a set of actions has been taken]

@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

 

[Allow priority mapping from customer progressive capture to request]

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

[How to progress a BPM if any of a set of actions has been taken]

@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

[Allow priority mapping from customer progressive capture to request]

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

 

 

 

[How to progress a BPM if any of a set of actions has been taken]

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

[How to progress a BPM if any of a set of actions has been taken]

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

[Display Request Category as a Column in the Request List]

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

 

 

 

[Wait for Status Change - to trigger when SubStatus is changed]

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!

[Application Entity Viewer - Is This In Development?]

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:

 

Quote

The important thing is to consult the Entity Viewer found in Home > Service Manager > Entity Viewer and see how the tables and keys are related to help you come up with the right join conditions for the right reports. However, this is still in Development and may not be 100% accurate. You can use it to obtain a rough idea on what fields match in two tables.

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

[Historic Updates Not Visible On Employee portal Request Details]

@Mary yes, using our demo customer account to view the request through the employee portal

[Historic Updates Not Visible On Employee portal Request Details]

@Mary

 

I have this already on, I'm not sure why it's not displaying anything?

I've navigated to the page on a new window, cleared cache etc. in case that was the issue.

 

[Historic Updates Not Visible On Employee portal Request Details]

@Mary

 

So there is no way to display historic updates in the Employee Portal?

 

Do you know if there is a way to import comments from external systems into timeline comments?

 

thanks

 

 

 

 

[Historic Updates Not Visible On Employee portal Request Details]

@Mary

 

The imported historic updates aren't part of the timeline but are in a separate category, so the UI looks a little different vs. timeline comments.

This image is from my perspective in the service manager, the historic updates box (collapsed) appears here but not in the employee portal.

 

[Historic Updates Not Visible On Employee portal Request Details]

@Mary

 

Some are public, others are private (as below). We could like to maintain the visibility level of each comment during the import.

 

I'm currently setting each historic update to h_updatetype = 1 or 512 when I import via the import tool, depending on the visibility of the original comment (some should be visible to us + employees while others are only us/internal note)

 

[Historic Updates Not Visible On Employee portal Request Details]

Hello,

 

We are importing a few hundred tickets from our old ticketing system into hornbill and have added the comments from the previous system into the Historic Updates section.

The historic updates a perfectly visible through service manager, however when an employee navigates through the employee portal to request details for a request, they cannot see the historic updates.

 

Is there a setting to change this, and if so where?

 

thanks

 

Aaron

[Request Import Tool Issue - Customers can't view their requests until manual customer update]

Aha @Victor I think it was case sensitivity in the domain name. I had to reconstruct the email address and had capitalized the domain name, tricky to detect as it was able to fins the correct user account etc.!

 

Thanks a lot for the help

[Request Import Tool Issue - Customers can't view their requests until manual customer update]

@Martyn Houghton

 

Its the Employee Portal that they can view tickets through

The user Id, Logon Id, and employee Id are all identical: firstname.lastname@domain-name.co.uk

 

I am running the latest version of the tool.

[Request Import Tool Issue - Customers can't view their requests until manual customer update]

On closer inspection, the issue is still there with the new version. I'll investigate and get back to you on the other questions (cannot seem to edit the previous response either))

[Request Import Tool Issue - Customers can't view their requests until manual customer update]

@Martyn Houghton

 

It was a version issue!

 

I had downloaded the latest tool but the old version was still being run.

 

 

thanks for your help, something I should have spotted sooner