Dave Woodhead

Thanks @Victor, will do.

Hi @Victor, the "missing" timeline entries are a combination of Team-visible and Customer-visible entries.

Hi, A colleague in my own Hornbill team is only able to see a subset of timeline entries on Service Requests. In one particular instance, he can see older updates but nothing raised in the past few weeks. For those he can see, these include updates visible to both the Team and the Customer. Timeline content of the same type (e.g. updates) appears inconsistently (e.g. older updates are visible, recent updates are not.) We've looked at the "Filter" drop-down (which doesn't obviously offer a date range filter) and tried different browsers (as a general principle,) but can't understand why some timeline content is not visible. The only possible cause I've been able to spot is that timeline updates while the request was On Hold are typically those not appearing in the timeline. Can anyone confirm whether a Request being on hold would affect other user's ability to see timeline additions? Thanks.

Thanks @Steve Giller

Hi, I'm part way through re-designing a BPM but can't complete the work as I'm still waiting on direction from the business. In the meantime I've been asked to make another minor adjustment to the same BPM, but can't amend and publish the Draft version as it includes partly-built functionality. Can I have multiple Draft versions of a BPM, i.e. use "Copy to Draft" to get a draft copy of the active version which I can then amend and publish, and then apply the same change to my part-built new version? I don't want to wipe out the part-built changes I have in place in the current "draft" version if using "copy to draft" would overwrite them. I guess I could download the current draft as a process definition file, then re-import it after applying the "minor" amendment to the live version, but I've not dabbled with process definition files before. Thanks, Dave

Thanks @Met, that's sorted it. I'd not looked at the Social Object Ref as we don't use the social features in Hornbill. I'll make a note of this solution (and your other suggestion) for future reference.

Hi all, I'm attempting to create a report showing Requests which have a particular (BPM-created) Task outstanding. There's no problem finding the task data in h_sys_tasks table and applying appropriate filters, but Request is only accessible in the Object Reference URN, but I can't map the URN (e.g. urn:sys:entity:com.hornbill.servicemanager:Requests:SR00079323) to the Requests table to extract request data. I had considered linking via the BPM Instance data, but while the BPM Instance data does hold the Request ID, the BPM reference in the Task data is also in a format (e.g. BPM:BPM20220413000133) that I can't use to join to the BPM Instance ID field (and I would prefer to avoid any unnecessary table joins if possible, anyway.) Can anyone suggest how I might be able to create a report with this sort of data? Thanks

Thanks @SamS, I'll run this my by AD team. We've received concerns from Hornbill's platforms team previously about the amount of time our LDAP processes are taking, so before introducing additional steps I will investigate whether we can apply filters and only include recently created/changes accounts in our LDAP feed. Dave

I've recently deleted some Project Tasks which were assigned to me, but one which was associated with a Milestone still appears in my Activities list. Clicking on the Activity doesn't do anything, and I've checked both the main Tasks screen and the Tasks panel of the Milestone and am not seeing the task there. I've logged off and opened Hornbill in a different browser, but the problem persists. Has anyone else found this problem, or a solution?

Thanks Nanette. The recent Project Manager update appears to have resolved the problem creating new projects.

I'm just getting to grips with Project Manager and am having issues with the Edit Task popup. Many controls on the popup are being rendered below the white dialog background. In the attached image, the audit history entries are rendered below the main pop-up with the white background. The audit entries have scrollbars so I can see all the content, but the layout is poor and would not be obvious to users who expect all Task details to appear on the white background. I've tried this in Edge and Chrome (both fully up to date) on Windows 10 (also up to date.) Is anyone else having this problem, and if so has anyone found a solution? Thanks.

I am new to Project Manager (though familiar with the Hornbill platform and Service Manager,) and have been trying to create up a basic Project Manager setup to walk colleagues through the app features. I have tried creating a simple PCF for creating a new Project, but despite amending the Setting app.com.hornbill.projectmanager.progressiveCapture.newProject to the name of my new PCF, Project Manager was giving an error message as the default "new project" PCF was still in draft. Since publishing the "new project" PCF, Project Manager is invoking this for new projects, but whatever data I input it is not actually creating Project records. At the end of the PCF I simply see a Harry Hornbill graphic with "View" and "Close" buttons. Apologies if I'm doing something wrong as a newcomer to Project Manager, but I'd welcome suggestions on what I might be doing wrong.

Thanks Victor - I've manually populated those options in the failed instance and will look at making changes to the main BPM definition. Dave

Hi James, The To: option is a single SMTP format email address (xxxxxx@bournemouth.ac.uk,) no spacing. I've checked that it includes full stops rather than commas, and there are no leading or trailing spaces. The Subject is set to Manual, with a value of: Software requested - Not available on Appsanywwhere or JAMF &[functions.pcf("bu_software_softwaredetails","bu_software_name")] The Body is set as: The following software has been requested but is unavailable on Appsanywhere or JAMF. Please can this be looked into asap. Thank you. Software Name: &[functions.pcf("bu_software_softwaredetails","bu_software_name")] Software Version: &[functions.pcf("bu_software_softwaredetails","bu_software_version")] Vendor: &[functions.pcf("bu_software_softwaredetails","bu_software_vendor")] O/S: &[functions.pcf("bu_software_softwaredetails","bu_software_os")] The PCF fields are all populated with plain text, so I can't see any issues with the Options.

Hi all, I'm getting the following failure on a Direct Message Send task in a BPM and would welcome advice on where to look for the cause (which will hopefully identify a solution.) Status : Failed Last Updated On : 20/10/2021 09:13:48 Xmlmc method invocation failed for BPM invocation node '08c4c556-a207-8cac-2e59-65f2cb9e154a/flowcode-d538fe10': <methodCallResult status="fail"> <state> <code>0200</code> <service>apps</service> <operation>emailSend</operation> <error>FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.core/flowcode/fc_bpm/emailSend): Input parameter validation error: The element &lt;to&gt; was not expected at location &apos;/methodCall/params/to&apos;</error> </state> </methodCallResult> Options for the BPM node are as follows. From Address is Auto, To: Is set to a manual, static email address. Body and Subject options are Manual, but reference PCF content. I've checked and the referenced PCF fields are all populated with simple text values (all alphanumeric, no symbols which might be interpreted as encoding.) All other options are set to "Ignore." Any thoughts on what might be causing this? Thanks for any suggestions.

Hi Victor. Worked a treat - thanks for the help.

Thanks Victor. I suspect the pre-publishing validation isn't working in this instance as the mandatory Checkpoints are set on certain branches of the conditional BPM logic, but there are scenarios where the BPM will not flow through those nodes. The fix you've proposed looks to be exactly what I need - I'll give it a go.

I have a BPM which (due to a design error) reaches the end of one stage with mandatory Checkpoints not set. When using the Manage Executed Processes facility to look at the specific instance of this BPM, I'm not able to either set the checkpoint or amend the stage definition to make the checkpoint optional. Rather than cancelling the BPM and managing the Request manually (this BPM is used for a large number of Requests recently migrated to our Hornbill instance,) can Checkpoints or Stage definitions be amended for Failed BPM instances and the instance then resumed? Thanks

Thanks Steve, I'll check back with my AD experts and see whether we have the necessary user data to enable more precise filtering.

Steve, My technical colleague Mark has been looking into this more over the last couple days and running various tests using Hornbill’s LDAP utilities and has commented as follows: My conclusion is that their suggestion, in combination with making sure we run the archive last, would achieve the aim….but in a horribly inefficient way. Yes the ‘gotcha’ is accurate, disabled accounts are caught in the change and made active. If we put this suggestion in place today, we’d be activating over 600 people in Hornbill who are currently archived, and then for the vast majority we’d be archiving them again an hour later. This number will just grow and grow as time goes on. Yes this captures a small number of accounts we want to revert from archive to active, but at the cost of lengthy and cumbersome runtimes and resource usage on the upload scripts, which again will get worse over time. Our upload runtime and resource usage is something that Hornbill themselves are already grumbling about as our scripts exist now, never mind after making this change. It also just seems generally backwards and inefficient. Are there any alternative approaches which other Hornbill customers have adopted to delver a more efficient LDAP import? As Mark mentions, we've already received concerns from your Platform team about the load our current import is creating, so adding more transactions would presumably be preferable to both them and us. Thanks

Thanks Steve.

Our AD expert has stated that the current configuration states "Currently: ‘status value = active, upon action = create’" and his interpretation that what we need is "status value = active, upon action = create & update" H has also provided screenshots (attached) of what he believes is required to set status to Active for reactivated AD accounts. Could you let me know if the screenshot represents the correct configuration we need? Is he on the right track? Thanks

Thanks Steve, I'll liaise with my AD team and see if they're able to set up an additional rule.

Users are sometimes deactivated in our Active Directory system, e.g. when on maternity leave, and reactivated at a later date. When the accounts are deactivated the corresponding Hornbill users are set to Archived, but our AD import does not reactivate Hornbill accounts for re-activated AD accounts. According to my colleague who implemented our AD import, we have workflow logic in Hornbill that states:1) when users appear in BU’s AD = create them in Hornbill with xyz roles2) when users get disabled in BU’s AD = archive them Is it possible to enhance an AD import to re-enable Hornbill logins for users when their AD account is reactivated?

Thanks James, We've not assigned the Advanced Request Task Completer role (in fact, I can't see it on our instance either in the System or Application-specific admin screens), so I'll go with my original assumption that someone in the original assignee team for the Task has manually reassigned it. At least now I know there's no audit/history trail I can stop scouring the screens and Entity model. Regards, Dave