Berto2002

At present only this. The target ID value is only to display all the results for one of the Requests since I understand target ID is a cross-reference to Request

I have just put a report together to report on the chronology of updates on the timeline of requests. The h_buz_activities (com.hornbill.servicemanager) table holds the data In the report, I have a mismatch in the count of updates on the timeline of the Request and the rows of the Buzz Activities. The discrepancy is that the System Internal Context timeline entries are not showing in the report. Is this expected and why would they be missing from Buzz Activities? I note that the initial logging DOES show as a System update:

@Fizza do we have this issue?

+ 1 I have a daily check for Failed and I need to select Failed/Cancelled and then click the status column twice to get the Failed at the top so I don't miss any. Yes, it's a bit piffling but would be great to have these separated. I seem to remember James A saying last year this was already logged for improvement but it hasn't happened. If it helps, instead of using the links on the left of the UI, bookmark/favourite this link which shows ALL FOUR BPMS (no filter, a bit like if you could click the "Manage Executed Processes header") in the same list: https://live.hornbill.com/xxx/admin/app/com.hornbill.servicemanager/manage-executed-processes/

The way this is coded also weirds me out; it's not intuitive but you can get to what you want with the right config. Testing and trial and error... I had this scenario: when the "User ID" was set to AUTO and "Used By" was set to TRUE, the system picked-up the Line Manager's Assets! That feels completely wrong to me because this node is about adding the Customer's assets so an Auto response collecting anyone but the Customer's assets can't be right?... HB Support: "User ID set to auto is not a valid option, so it's the same as User ID not set. They need to specify an ID as there is nothing that automatically populates this value.

+1. I can see this being needed at some point for a whole category. It's a similar issue to removing an Organisation Group; you need to delete all the users first (page by page!) See also our related issue where we are getting users in IC forms and agents in pickers selecting and linking archived assets because we cannot filter them out. If you would like to support this one...

I do not have the same issue: My understanding is that there is a Platform Application Right called "Advanced Task Completer" and "System Right called "Update Tasks" that you need to have in order to be able to re-assign Tasks but this also gives you the right to complete tasks assigned to other teams. We only allow a select number of Admins to have this (ITSM managers who can then ask why the Task reassignment is required). We didn't want any Task reassignment because it meant teams could bypass processes where only certain people or teams or roles should be allowed to execute a task. We spent a bunch of time migrating BPMs from assigning tasks to "Teams" to assigning them to "Roles" and having people in multiple teams in the right Role for that Task so they did not need to re-assign. For example, we used to have a triage task on a request assigned to the triage team but when they assigned the request to 1st line support, 1st line couldn't complete the task! So we put all application support people in a Role called "Application Support" (inventive right!) and altered the BPM to assign the Task to the Role so we no longer have that issue.

@Jeremy interesting. In the global search box we don't have "Timeline", we have "Details"... We have raised a support ticket that some of our tickets have no Timeline so I'm wondering if something is related to this issue.

Lovely jubbly. The bit that got me was that the Service Owner has to be the one to make the links; not even Super Users / Admins. Normally as Admin I can do what Owners etc can do. I think Admins should be able to do this. Should I raise an enhancement?

View of the h_itsm_services table with these columns listed:

Oh, and if this is required, to make it mandatory...

In the service manager release of 19 July (Build 2906), a fix was included to send emails to the default mailbox specified in the service portfolio item (Email notifications should be sent from the mailbox selected in the request's service {PM00177121}). However, we found most of our default mailboxes values were not set. This is because the option to select the mailboxes not included in the form when creating a new service so users have to remember to go back into edit the service after initially creating it in order to set this value. I figure we better if that selection was on the original form

We also have this issue it seems. About 60 tickets did not come off hold yesterday so we're manually releasing. No errors yet though.

For the forum, we confirm this is fixed. On Support, we are doing a little more validation and then will respond on the ticket later this morning. Thank you.

I am waiting on my team telling me if this is also something we are experiencing.

I have logged Premier Support ticket for this. The "Complete" button no longer shows for our Collaboration users.

Service Manager release went out this morning on our instance

We've altered from Borough to City and want to alter our Org Name. Anyone got experience of what we need to think about to do this? I obviously cannot alter the Organisation Id but that should not be user-facing so should not matter... or am I best creating a whole new Company some 'migrating' from one to the other?

@Steve Giller I meant in my case: We have the default and the override flags set to NOT mandate the field... and yet they are showing with the red bars.

In the same order as above. The override flags only determine if the field is shown, not if it is mandated. This is a new issue in the last few days/weeks (not sure when since it's not breaking anything).

This issue seems to have crept up on us over the last week or so. We are seeing the red bar which usually indicates a mandated field being displayed even when data is not required for that field according to the backend configuration. Is anyone else seeing this? Example. Here, 3 fields appear to be required in the form: But they are NOT required fields. They all have this config and the IC form is not insisting the fields are completed (Next still works) so the UI is showing aberrant behaviour. I have also noticed this in our Change BPM where we have a field doing a user lookup and it appears with the red bar but is not mandated in the config. Notice in the above example that two of them are not showing this behaviour. The difference is that those are free text fields so this seems to be happening only on LOOKUPS (either from Simplelist) or User picker.

I can see the Wiki page: Document Manager - Hornbill And in a Service Portfolio entry I see the ability to filter documents... but not attach. In the Document Manager I cannot see any way to link a Document to a Service: The final part of the puzzle will then be to be able to produce a report which draws out the bookmarkable link to all documents against our Services.

@Steve Giller could I please ask your review and comment on this? Anything obvious? Do I need to log with Support?

@Steve Giller for any given service, how does the system select what IC form it uses? In short, how do I make sure we use the standard form; where do I specify this? 1) does it use the same form as the original incident being 'copied'? 2) does it somehow 'lookup a form from the Service? how? 3) does it use these SM app settings?

@Jim I also thought along these lines and believe we've had similar issues when emails were coming-in but these were resolved by ensuring one uses the Form ID of "customformdefaults" if replacing the usual form; and indeed we have this in place for the "General Incident" IC form we are using. My assumption is then that this Form ID should mean the IC aspect performs as it should. I would be interested to hear from HB about this. It's pretty important that we can create a linked Request and input a new/revised/meaningful summary and description!