Berto2002

Has anyone reported that the "customize columns" does not work in the UI Preview in the Request List? I click it and nothing happens. I need to switch back to the 'old' interface to be able to get the button to work. @Daniel Dekel

That would help in the Leaver case, certainly. I will have a think through that idea. But it's a 'destructive' approach so could not be used in any case where membership of the groups is still required.

We use this node quote a lot to discover what Organisation (organization) groups a user is in when they leave, so we can trigger removal requests and remove them. The nodes returns results for up to 10 instances of the given group type; in the case above, this was "General". We often paste this on the timeline for service desk visibility thus: We use Org Groups for Subscribers to individual Services (applications) and the workflows add and remove users to these OGs each time the app team action create or remove a user. I want to expand this facility but can you guess the issue? That's right, it won't be long before our users are members of more than 10 OGs of Type General. And then the workflow nodes will only 'Get' the first 10 and then we won't be able to act upon all their apps when they leave. So I think I am highlighting what looks like a hard-coded limitation that is going to stop us expanding the use of our 'automated' subscriber list management system. And this, in itself, holds us back trying to make the portal easier for everyone by only showing the Services (apps) they have access to. Yes, we have other OG types that could give 10+10+ etc but that means spreading my workflows for this activity across the types which will be confusing to manage and won't guarantee the issue won't occur because any given user may end up with the exact spread of 11+ apps that are in any given type. I mentioned this in the HUG23 to Dave in TS but I don't know Dave's handle on there to alert him. Can I please request a review and to get back to me on what we can do here to rectify or me workaround this limitation? Thanks, Rob

Ah, ok, yes, I would endorse that this should be on ALL Requests (if in the team) because about half of our initial assignments use "most available" or "round robin" assignment in workflow so the button will rarely show. Analysts do need to dive-in and take ownership from other analysts in the team sometimes (easier for someone to say "I'll grab that from you" than ask them to "please assign to me"). +1 for all Requests (assuming user is in the same team); because it's quicker than using the re-assignment function.

@Paul Chambers should be fixed in release last night ( 2.157.0 (2973) )

Eager to find it...

Some time ago I requested that Hornbill introduce a feature to allow a Customer to select the members of an Organisation Group when logging new Requests. Hornbill fulfilled it with this feature which was great: BUT there's a very similar place in the Workflow (BPM) where the pickers are configured in a similar way but we cannot select from the users of an Org Group. From a use-case perspective, we have a problem now where the user can select a member of a group but if our service desk detect that person is out of the office, they cannot re-select another one using the same criteria! So we cannot migrate away from using a simplelist for this feature because we need both the user and the service desk to be able to select from the same list.... We need the same feature there! I request it please; select from org groups.... I wish I had asked for it in the same time as the ICF!!!

In terms of a visual I think I'm drawing-out that it seems counter intuitive that these two elements of email template configuration are referring to different email templates and only one is configurable per service.

I thought that selecting the Email Template here: Would mean that that email template would used for all Customer-visible Updates made through the UI but in my testing it continues to use the default as per the application setting: Of course, that template does become the default one used when entering the Email action of the Request. But is it correct that the setting only impacts the Email action and not the background default template used for all updates? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to do both?

+1 to use the members of an Org Group to do this.

I don't think that's possible. All the relevant variables are here:

Any more?

@Steve Giller maybe JJack has a different question but mine is: In the example you showed the screenshot of, if I deactivate v10 (so we have no Active Version of that Workflow at all), will Requests with prior versions (1-9 in this case) continue to run uninterrupted? I seem to recall about 2 years ago, when I first started, I did exactly this on a Change BPM (It ran into an error publishing as it had too many versions - an issue you've since fixed) and all my inflight Change Requests with previous versions stopped working so I had to re-activate the BPM and leave it. I am after confirmation that issue was rectified.

I want my Full Users to be able to see certain FAQs on all Services (but not Basic Users in the portals). FAQ have a visibility of Portals, Service Desk or Both. Sure, if I select Service Desk, it's not showing on the portal and it does show against a Request for that Service as a "Solution"... But is there anywhere a Full User can look-up the FAQ on any given Service if they do not have Services Manager access to view the Service Portfolio and don't have an open Request in front of them?

It would be nice to hear a definitive answer to the second question since I am scared to disable an old version of a workflow for fear of it stopping all instances of that workflow in flight (even though different versions)

As admins I am always interested in the contents of the Request data fields and their extended fields. I have set-up a custom button that runs an Autotask that emails them to me; but it would be much simpler and a great support to all admin people if we saw a button next to every Request that gave us an instant view of those fields for diagnostics; either a pop-up like the Activities box or a new tab thing. it would be a great time saver for all admins in testing and troubleshooting. How about a button here next to the other 'admin' type button:

Thanks, I understand several customers have reported this issue to Premier Support. I also confirm that when we had the Human Task as the last update, the Change Type was populated OK and the new Request ID was correctly published to the Timeline so all 3 of my symptoms had the same cause.

@Emily Patrick, @samwoo I believe this is what I asked for here. If that works for you, please support. We also want to move away from emails but the HB tool is highly engineered around emails if you don't choose to rely on it's inbuilt notifs prefs. I mentioned an example of JIRA where you can have the timeline element of a JIRA ticket provided by another messaging platform like Teams; that's what we want; to replace the whole timeline in Requests with our preferred collaboration platform MS Teams. I have started this by allowing our people to receive their new Request and Resolution notifs by Teams instead of email thus: Users opt-in to teams notifs: Workflow updates custom fields on user's profile: Then at start of the workflow we look at the user's profile and determine if we send them an MS Teams private message or an email: The disadvantage of this approach is that you have to put that bit in every Workflow... We only did this as a test to see if it worked (it does) but we would also need to have nodes that update this in Azure Active Directory so the daily user import doesn't over-write our custom fields.

We experience a row limit of 25,000 records but in such cases, we do get 25,000 rows downloaded which is a truncated subset of the full results; we do not get zero results as you show here. So looks like another issue with your extract.

@JJack see if the one that failed meets the conditions we describe in this thread. You may be experiencing another facet of a potential defect introduced earlier this week with the release ("A ticket was raised, but not associated with the process").

I confirm that adding-in a Human Task just before the create step led to the spawned Request 'picking-up' the prescribed workflow. Thus, the issue appears as you have described @Paul Chambers. For us it is impeding a new development; for you an existing process. Good work, thanks for contributing. I have a workaround to add something to my Outlook calendar to attend to this Human Task once a month but not ideal...

@Paul Chambers interesting. Are you also seeing this issue? Do you have any idea as to whether that was an intentional 'change' or a consequential 'change'? That does indeed match my circumstance because my SR is untouched by humans; it's purpose is to overcome the limitation that Routing Rule Templates can't open CRs so I need an intermediary to spin one up.... This is the timeline of my SR: So I am now going to put a Human Task in there and see if it 'picks up'...

I recreated the nodes from within than workflow and still no workflow is picked-up so that rules-out in issue with the template copy.

@James Ainsworth. Good question. I ran the report for this and no, we don't. The report is all services, cat items and subscribers so each cat item has multiple lines for each subscriber. In alphabetical order on cat item only the one in question shows. Today, I had a thought that the nodes that do this work were pasted (via templates) from another flow and then adjusted (in case you noticed, this is why the Result Reference is "logRequestServiceRequestTest" (not, presumably "logRequestChangeRequestTest") but I assume the value in result ref is incidental as long as it is consistently referred to.