Berto2002

@Osman you can use an inbound email rule to pick-up these emails and send an email to the customer via a routing rule template in Service Manager. Below is ours. We use the inbound rule to catch all emails not otherwise attended to because we have a zero inbox policy for service desk and do not attend to any emails manually. The email is therefore a catch-all for any of our customers' domains which explains a number of scenarios where the user may receive an auto-reply and gives them reasons and a way forward:

Flagging to front of queue in case anyone else agrees 'pinning' the header bar, hub and info box would be useful in light of the new UI changes.

@Daniel Dekel is this issue for this UI list or want it logged as separate forum post? When the Full User has a long title, it does not wrap and pushes the buttons out the right of the box:

@Miro in the 2.5 years I've worked on this tool, there has never been a "how this field in summary..." field in the override flags area (although always wondered why that is the only one of the 5 options missing!)

Hi @Miro, Many of these Form Fields have over-ride conditions. This is the list of italics/non-italics that shows the full list: However, the override conditions do not have the "show this field in summary..." option: They rely on the option being set in the Default flags and we have all those set to ticked: Two fields that have NO overrides are the start and end date as below and these are not showing as we fill them in: Configured thus (no override):

I was logging a test Request through the front-end today and the answers to the questions are not appearing in the Summary Panel as I go. All the Form Fields have "Show this field in summary panel once form is completed" ticked (checked). They all suddenly appeared when I ticked the last box on the form: Which is configured like this. I think there's something in the background that is only showing the answers in the Summary Panel when the Next button is eligible to be pressed on the form? Or perhaps it's when certain mandated fields have been completed? I did a new test and ticked the last question FIRST (the one at the bottom) and then, all the rest of the fields did appeared as I filled them in, as expected. I think we have a defect here.

We have a Premier Support ticket outstanding for this defect because it's pretty serious (many people logging tickets on behalf of someone else are getting them logged in their name so we can get software installed for the wrong people!) and HB are looking at this with development. I believe it was thought resolved in the September release but it was not.

I have two open Premier Support tickets in this space. I believe there are defects in the application in relation to visibility: "System Internal Context making 'Public' posts on timeline, when we think it should be 'Team'". We have this setting (guest.ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.operation.defaultVisibility ) on "team" but system internal updates are still going public (only since the August release) "App setting for Updates to be "Public" actually sets them to "Customer"". When we have this setting (guest.ui.app.com.hornbill.servicemanager.operation.defaultVisibility.update) on "public", updates go out as Customer (not sure when this started but detected in testing) I think the issue is more widespread than the above tickets and we are all experiencing it in different ways (there are a large number of "what's going on here" posts relating to visibility. I hope Hornbill have cottoned-on to this and are undertaking a review. For example, I detected FIVE different default settings (i.e. what the behaviour is when the value is set to Ignore) for the Timeline Visibility of Service Manager nodes; so we just cannot rely on "ignore" and must specify it every time: I asked for clarity in this post and I must have a look to see if the documentation has yet been updated.

@Daniel Dekel have you also noted and covered-off that the "dismiss all" button no longer closes the popout, so you just have to click the X in the top right as well. This is also an extra click from the previous UI.

Yes @samwoo: h_sm_requests_extended I make that 40 extra custom fields available in the Update Request >Custom Fields Minor suggestion to Hornbill that it would be useful to have the chars/type on all the fields in this list as a reminder. I think the missing piece is for A to O and 41 to 60 to be appended with "(VARCHAR/255)" or similar

Great to see the Request screen now with auto re-sizing. @Emily Patrick In a future enhancement I would endorse that divider being 'draggable' to make the Information Box wider or narrower according to user preference.

Oh wow, what service. Yes, the double-click does enable me to edit it. OK thank you for looking into the behaviour here. It's not intuitive to have the delete value button not working.

I just tried to create a report using the "value is like" filters in a standard Entity Report on the Request table and this "Empty Value" pops-up. It cannot be removed. Clicking it and clicking "delete selected value" does nothing. It also appears when we use the "is one of these" filter. For these, we can add a new value which then relegates the "empty value" box to a small grey lozenge (below) and we can select and delete that but the resulting search/filter doesn't seem to work. So at the moment, we are stuck and cannot create a new report with filter on the Request table; pretty basic stuff. Anyone else got this? I will report to Premier Support if not updates from the community.

Can I chuck one in while you are on it @AlexTumber? Could you please make a minor tweak to the headers for the fields in the Request Details view on Requests? We use almost all the fields in the Extended Change Request table and the headers are in the same size text and only slightly different to the text itself. Below just looks like a massive bunch of text so it's hard for people to scan and pick-out what they are looking for. Some bold or slightly larger text or nicely done horizontal lines would be most excellent. I really think it would be useful if there was a little change made to draw attention to make these look a little more like headers to the eye.

After the release above that this issue was touted as fixed in we detected a recurrence and we raised another Premier Support ticket which remains with Support. It seems some instances were fixed but not all.

In the Service Portfolio, when setting the Resolution Category Level, the twisties successfully expand a category set but do not contract it. The little arrow goes back to pointing right but the category does not collapse.

The Actions icons have been centred in their column when before they were left-aligned. It was previously easier to read when each respective icon type is vertically aligned:

Hi again. Reporting that the box to configure the Manual text in a cloud node to send a private teams message is very small... (Microsoft/Teams/Chat/Send Message)

Has anyone reported that the BPM logs are all spaced-out too and that's not very helpful. It was very useful when there were many rows on the screen because you can work out the sequence of things without having to scroll too much. now I have half the information and I'm always going up and down trying to re-find things...

I could try Workflow wizardry. Anyone tried/know how we might find the 1st Wednesday of the month reliably using BPM nodes...? I think I can do this based on when the API Scheduler creates the CRs. It will always creates them on set days (either the 2nd or the 4th Tuesday). Thus, the following Wednesday (+8 days) should always be the target Wednesday. That translation is pretty safe to get the 3rd as +8 from the 2nd but the wrap-around from the 4th Tuesday to the 1st Wednesday is not so safe. Need to have a think.

@Victor so there is no way the "API scheduler" can "schedule" changes. Ironic! Do you know when the Scheduler feature in Service Manager will be released and if that will enable us to raise scheduled change requests?

@Victor you say "you won't be able to do the scheduling"; do you mean at all? Can the API Scheduler not receive the RequestId back from the first call to logChangeReqyest and input that into the RequestId field for the Scheduling call?

@Victor can you please remove our API key from this forum...

Yes, my suggestion covers for the fact the basic users don't see the Interested Connections field option. Service Manager Forms (hornbill.com) says The Connections form allows the support person to select a connected customer at the time of raising the request. This form is only used by and visible to support staff when raising the request in Service Manager when using the full client. Connection Search Search for one or more customers that you would like to add as a connection to the request. Connection Type A pick list of available Connection Types is available to allow you to select the type of connection being added. Although nothing to stop you requesting this be flagged as an Enhancement opportunity. I would support it.

@lomixture here's another idea for you. We had this issue for Changes. We wanted our engineers to be able to Copy a previously completed change and then just tweak the details before submitting it through the full process. A Copy of any Request copies it's data and then launches immediately into the same BPM* So in that BPM you need something that detects it's a copy. In our case, that was Priority; if a CR had a Priority in the first stage of the Change Workflow that means it must be a copy because we only apply Priority during the second, Build, stage. So you have a decision which pushes all copies to a Human Task which asks the analyst to fill-in the information that is different about this CR from the last CR. In our case, it's only the Summary that really matters because we will ask them to manually review all the other details later; but there is nothing stopping you from having multiple data captures here for each variable field. You can use this to alter the customer also. After that, you use the update request node/s (or update customer) to map the response/s to the variable/custom field/s they need to be in and we then throw it back into the main Workflow to continue. Outcome; you end up with a ticket just like the one you copied but with variable details amended before it starts firing out to the customer etc. A downside is this only works with a specific Workflow because you need these nodes here to present the Human Task and map the outcomes; but it sounds like you have a specific high volume case here where bespoke workflow would be valid. These are the nodes that do the work: Does this help? * the 'same' BPM is literal; it runs the same VERSION of the BPM as the original Request. This can be a risk after a while because if your published version of that workflow moves on, your copies will not use it and so you'll wonder why some tickets are using a retired workflow! So if you do this approach, make sure you tell the team to raise a fresh whole new Request after a release of that Workflow and then use that as a new 'template' to copy from.