Jump to content

Berto2002

Hornbill Users
  • Posts

    179
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Berto2002

  1. In our Change Request workflow, we have the concept that the Change Manager can remove the Human Task that the Implementer uses to declare the Start of the work. This effectively means they won't proceed because they are trained to use this task before starting. This can happen if, for example, new information comes to light about the CR any time between the time it is Authorised and the Scheduled Start Date. The case in point today is that the pre-cursor tests failed. Another case we have is expiry: if the Start is not declared before the Scheduled End date (missed window), the task moves on. My workflow then gives a task for the Change Manager to review the position before either amending the Schedule or the Plans and re-Authorising or Rejecting. Here's the enhancement. I want to UN-Authorise the Change Request at that point so it very clear that the work may not proceed. If the CM authorises, in their review, it will again be Authorised in Service Manager. At the moment I am in the position of having a CR that clearly states "Authorised" and my technical staff could debate that they implemented an Authorised CR even when I've tried to stop it for very good reasons... But here's the issue. The node for Authorisation Decision has no option to "Remove" an answer previously given: we have only Approve or Reject. I do not want to reject it (we are enablers to change not blockers). I request an option here to return the Change Request to the pre-authorisation state of null decision, please. If not in this node, is there another way to achieve it?
  2. 3. Use case. At some point I need to have my CR re-authorised for some reason so I need an AutoTask to update the RequestID to be unauthorised and then for me to INPUT the name of the person to whom I am pushing the Approval out to; with a choice to use the internal Authorisation or External Authorisation nodes. The result of that is received and updates the RequestID again. I can have 'gates' in certain other nodes that only allow the workflow to proceed if the authorisation is still present.
  3. Hi, I am getting used to the AutoTask idea but I get limited by the fact it cannot accept inputs from the Agent on which to act. I request you please enable a Human Task node type to be used in Autotasks. The node would 'pop-up' just like any other Human Task but would send it's variables, outcomes and results to the AutoTask not the core BPM. Example use cases: My Service Desk periodically need to make updates to Assets (e.g. phones, laptops) including altering the Used By and changing the status to show, say, if they are deployed or in storage. This happens in a number of workflows such as leavers, starters, movers and sometimes standard service requests. Users are unpredictable beasts and they don't always turn-up and want or give stuff at the exact moment the Hornbill workflow expects it. To keep our assets under control (and without asking our SDesk to browse into Asset Manager and do the updates there), I want a Custom Button that starts an AutoTask that allows the Agent to update Asset fields at almost any time (I will set criteria such as status.open and assigned to Service Desk, etc). To do that, I need a Human Task in the AutoTask with the usual configurable form to specify what can be updated. I want to start sending communications to my users through workflow but workflow is overly prescriptive because it pre-defines when I may or may not need to send comms (i.e. the stage or node at the time). I need to send "at any time" when I am in a major incident or a change. If a Custom Button could launch an AutoTask that had a Human Task to capture text like, say, "The Incident impact on users", "what we are doing about it", the "service" (from RequestID), the subscriber list or email address/es to send to and "when we will next update you", then I would be able to use that button when necessary. Meanwhile, the core workflow is uninterrupted but the AutoTask can update a custom field to state comms have been sent More to come. I will append to this post when I come-up with the next reason why a Human Task in AutoTasks would be extremely useful. Berto
  4. Our Service Desk have leapt on this to use straight away. Thanks!
  5. Hi @Victor. Any thoughts on whether we have a defect here? I am looking to deploy my latest Change Management process to live in the next couple of weeks and would love to have the Update Card in place
  6. @Miro. I have just been to the "Co-Workers" tab of Collaboration. When I click this link to find Co-Workers it ONLY RETURNS FULL USERS (of which we have 77). And yet, in Service Manager, as per the start of this thread, when I select "Just Co-Workers" in the Human Task dynamic lookup, it finds a mix of Full and Basic Users. In short, the applications are INCONSISTENT in their treatment of the filters for "Co-Workers". Back to my point, I believe the filter of "Co-Worker" was designed to capture only those users who either have "User" Account Types or who are consuming a licence such as those with "Service Manager" Roles or "Collaborator Role". So I put it to you that the BP designer has a defect in allowing Basic Users to be found and selected when the "Just Co-Workers" option is selected. that defect is not manifest in Collabotion application itself.
  7. Not really @Miro because if I want to select only from (Full, licenced) Users (i.e the ones that can perform Service Manager functions), then I have to select "Just Co-Workers" BUT I also have to do a major data update to tick the box for 95% of my Co-Workers to exclude them from that list; and ensure my process reliably ticks that box each time we add a user! The concept of a Full User is as clear as the concept of a Basic user in the Hornbill User Admin so I don't understand why you would not design it so I can reliably select all my licenced (Full) Users; the most common function. Another way to put this is that the Basic Users are included in the Co-Workers list unless excluded with that tick-box which leads no way to select only Full Users
  8. @Miro. Can you go one better please? At present, you have "Co-Workers" and "Basic Users" in your dynamic drop-down. This is a bizarre mix of licenced users and users that meet a certain criteria (a tickbox) What I believe you should have is "Co-Workers", "Basic Users" and "Full Users". The fact Full Users is missing from that list strikes me as an oversight. That would enable us to select Full Users who are usually the only people we need on those drop-downs.
  9. Have I just found out why? Basic Users will turn-up as Co-Workers if that box is not ticked? But it doesn't explain Suspended? Surely Suspended should not show as a Co_worker? So my question is now how do I update 2000+ Basic users to have the Hide User flag ticked?!
  10. I've detected what I think is a risk in our Change Request approval flow by unexpected behaviour. In a Human Task, we ask the Change Manager to specify a number of Approvers for a CR using the "Hornbill user picker" which we set to "Just Co-Workers". My understanding of that is it should allow only those with a Full licence to be selected. And yet when I go to use it, it is still showing users who are Basic users and those with Full licences but Suspended status. This will clearly create issues if either type are selected. From the user admin list, one Claire is Basic and one Claire is Suspended: But when using my selector in action, both Claire's could be selected. My instinct is that the "Just Co-workers" filter is not working as designed; it should exclude all Basic and Suspended. Can I have a view on this please? Thank you Berto
  11. The final feedback point is that we are used to having multiple pieces of information in the first post (as above in blue) but the existing facility does not take into account the line breaks I put in the box.
  12. Hi @Steve G, we've got it working, kind of... The problem that prevents us using this is that the connector is posting to the Teams Channel as the personal account of the admin person who gave the approval; in this case "James". How do we get the post to appear to come from either a generic account such as "Service Desk" or from the Owner of the Hornbill Request, for example? This is a bit of showstopper. Up until now, we have been using the feature to email new conversations to the Channel and these have been coming-in with the Summary as a formatted header to the conversation (blue below). By moving to the new connector to start and reply to conversations we would lose that by the looks of things. I tried using Wiki markup in the Content of the Teams node but it's not worked (Pink below) Are there any options for formatting available or could you look into that for development? The other issue is that the status code is showing as "Failed" in the Timeline update but the Conversation is being initiated and an ID returned: Overall, exciting to get this working but...
  13. If you have access to update your Wiki you could update: "These columns should ONLY be used in conjunction with a date-time picker or with the Get TimeStamp Cloud Utility"
  14. I have adopted a similar approach. The button only appears when there is a specific value in a custom field for a given Request Type. I have workflow that sets the value to "Offline" at a set stage of the process. My custom button only shows when that is the case. The Autotask of that Custom button sets the value to "CAB". Then, when the workflow gets to another point it looks to see if "CAB" is in that custom field; if so it diverts. If any other value (including Offline) is in the custom it proceeds as normal. This gives the effect that the button only shows for a brief period but it it is used in that period it disappears as soon as it is used. This enables our Change Manager to send a CR to CAB during it's offline approvals even if a previous decision was made that it doesn't need CAB.
  15. Mapping Fields from Customised Forms - Hornbill states, "DATETIME custom fields 21 - 25 each suitable for holding a single date-time stamp (YYYY-MM-dd HH:mm:ss). These columns should ONLY be used in conjunction with a date-time picker." I want to start to capture the ACTUAL start and end of the work on a Scheduled CR so we can assess compliance with the schedule. We have "Start Implementation" and "End Implementation" Human Tasks to give us the point in time. I was planning to use a Get Timestamp Cloud Utility node directly after each of those Human Tasks and map that result to a custom field (one of 21 to 25) but due to the warning in the Wiki page I am concerned about that. Do I need to manipulate the Get Timestamp node result (with a String Util?) before it will be compatible with the custom field 21-25 formatting? Regards, Berto
  16. I have just tried through AutoTask and it worked. And I have just tried through the main workflow and it now works. Weird but OK! All done here. Thanks!
  17. I have just tried adding-in the Cloud Get Timestamp nodes with one getting the current time and one getting the time plus 5 minutes. Those outputs are then fed into the Variables of the Update Change Calendar action in node "add current date time to schedule" The result of the TimeLine update is a bit different this time: Outcomes of Schedule action: &[global["flowcoderefs"]["addSchedule"]["outcome"]] - &[global["flowcoderefs"]["addSchedule"]["isScheduled"]] Looks like: So the node that is supposed to add it to the schedule is declaring SUCCESS but the result is that it is NOT successful.
  18. OK so this is for Administrators only? Most of my Agents cannot see this BPM back-end view. This means any Agent who finds themselves in this position needs to appeal to a Hornbill Service Manager Admins for help. I was hoping you would/could expose this option to the Agent to over-ride themselves. Please consider that option too. However, the feature you describe would be useful insofar as our Service Desk Manager has Admins permissions so could be the contact for the Agent to perform this over-ride. I look forward to it.
  19. Hi @James Ainsworth I will try that test but it's not what I want to achieve. I want to achieve this with no manual interation. I want to use the Hornbill Automation options of Start Time from Now and End Time from Now; and they are not working... Would you mind testing this and see if it works for you?
  20. James, this is an interesting idea. The switch meaning that the Std Chg Cat Items could be 'hidden' from normal views and just operate in the background. The advantage of this approach is that the Cat Item (and thus the type of standard change) would be visible on the main Request view. However, we are trying to state to our agents that the procedure approved in the original CR is the benchmark and unless there is a link to that, the Agent needs to always manually search to find it. The product contains the facility to Add Connections and to Add Assets. It seems logical that an enhancement idea for Adding Linked Requests could be worth considering. However, I appreciate the view may be that Requests are 'transient'. But then think of how this could be used to automatically link Incidents with Known Errors also; KEs tend to stay around a lot longer and I can imagine SDesk being presented with an option to select a list of KE's in a Human Task. But even better; simply allow the Dynamic Drop Down boxes in the Capture Fields to search against the Request Summary and/or RequestID table and this really helps.
  21. @Gerry. There were two threads on here: one where you acknowledged the usefulness of the 'get out' clause; and the other was Steve's suggestion for a workaround. Is there any progress on your thinking to allow the Agent to move the flow forward within the 3 day wait if the recipient just doesn't respond? Cheers
  22. We have set Standard Change types in a SimpleList and I would like to have the new Request workflow automatically linked to the original Standard Change based on a user selection in PCF. Workflow would be along the lines of: User selects Standard Change Type in Human Task (Simple List with RequestID of the original record as the Value) Workflow Gets RequestID outcome from the PCF Workflow "Adds Linked Request" with that RequestID Then we can report on the number of iterations of that Standard Change we have go through the system and control which is referenced through the SimpleList updates via CAB. But the Linked Requests only has "Update" and "Resolve" not "Add" options. Is this possible another way? The best I can think of to refer over is to add the Raw Value from the SimpleList to the External Reference field to make it at least reportable and visible.
  23. Hi @Victor, @Steve Giller. I have got around to re-testing this and have now output the details the failing node is using to the TimeLine. The expressions in the failing node and the TimeLine update are: &[global["flowcoderefs"]["getCardInformation"]["cardId"]] <span style="font-size: 11px">'''Summary:''' &[global["flowcoderefs"]["getReqInformationExpedited"]["summary"]]</span> <span style="font-size: 11px">'''Start:''' [&[global["flowcoderefs"]["getReqInformationExpedited"]["scheduledStartDate"]]]</span> <span style="font-size: 11px">'''End:''' [&[global["flowcoderefs"]["getReqInformationExpedited"]["scheduledEndDate"]]]</span> The result arrives as the following with 770 being the CardID output: The two nodes leading up to this one work ok. Notably the one that moves the card in the lane works fine. The Update Card node fails regardless of whether I leave the CardID field as Auto (as the Move Card node does and works) or if I use the look-up to specify the CardID from a previous Get node. The log states: 2.034924s ERROR Execution Failed: Xmlmc method invocation failed for BPM invocation node 'stage-438aaf27/flowcode-dd35290c': <methodCallResult status="fail"> <state> <code>0207</code> <service>apps</service> <operation>updateCard</operation> <error>/apps/com.hornbill.core/flowcode/fc_modules/xmlmc.js(189): error X1001: Uncaught EspMethodCall::invoke: Operation[apps/com.hornbill.boardmanager/Card::updateCard] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.boardmanager/entities/Card/fc_ops/updateCard): nodeName: Update Card; nodeId: b9e6bd6a-057a-47e3-8b93-074bfdb84e2a; At 251/1: &quot;Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property &apos;record&apos; of undefined&quot; throw(e); _fc_node_exec_b9e6bd6a_057a_47e3_8b93_074bfdb84e2a</error> <flowcodeError> <where>Execute</where> <filename>/apps/com.hornbill.core/flowcode/fc_modules/xmlmc.js</filename> <lineNumber>189</lineNumber> <columnPos>20</columnPos> <message>Uncaught EspMethodCall::invoke: Operation[apps/com.hornbill.boardmanager/Card::updateCard] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.boardmanager/entities/Card/fc_ops/updateCard): nodeName: Update Card; nodeId: b9e6bd6a-057a-47e3-8b93-074bfdb84e2a; At 251/1: &quot;Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property &apos;record&apos; of undefined&quot; throw(e); _fc_node_exec_b9e6bd6a_057a_47e3_8b93_074bfdb84e2a</message> <errorCode>1001</errorCode> </flowcodeError> </state> </methodCallResult> I have reached the end of my ability to diagnose this issue without assistance. I hope you can help. Cheers, Berto
  24. I want a certain type of (Standard) Change request to be added to the Scheduled Start and Scheduled End Dates directly after a Human Task is completed. The business case is for logging instances of Standard Changes like firewall rule changes quickly and easily with my Agents having one Task to both state it was done and when. I configured this node and set the Start Time from now to 0 and then tried 1 but neither actually populated the Scheduled Start and Scheduled End and the CR did not appear on the Change Calendar. I added a node to update the Timeline directly after: Outcomes of Schedule action: &[global["flowcoderefs"]["addSchedule"]["outcome"]] - &[global["flowcoderefs"]["addSchedule"]["isScheduled"]] and the result was: "Outcomes of Schedule action: success -" (i.e. missing the "isScheduled" outcome. Schedule was still blank. I was expecting it to populate the Start and End:
×
×
  • Create New...