Gareth Cantrell

The suggestion was to generate a support passcode for each user, configure the personalised view, generate a new support passcode for the next user, etc ... basically, extremely time consuming and would need to be done each time a new user is added, or any of the "standard" views need updating.

We have a change workflow with a "Suspend, Wait for List of Request Authorisers" node, followed by an "Auto Assign Authorisation" node. If we add multiple authorisers one at a time, only a single authorisation activity is generated for the user added last to the list of authorisers. This behaviour is the same if we add the associated owner and then an additional authoriser - only the additional authoriser receives the authorisation activity. If we add multiple authorisers together, then multiple authorisation activities are generated as expected (image below).

In our previous tool, we could create share views with variables/functions such that the shared view was "personalised" to the person using it. This would allow us to construct a set of standard views which could be documented and shared with agents. They were still free to create their own views, however there were *always* a set of standard views; eg. My Team - Active My Team - Unassigned My Team - Starters Assigned to Me - Active Assigned to Me - On Hold Asking every agent to recreate a view based on criteria we give them is 1) error prone, and 2) will likely not get done by everyone, rendering our user manuals incorrect. A suggestion was raised that we use the support passcode against each of our agents (over 100) to reconstruct views specific to them as we cannot create a shared view with variables.

Is there any way we could create a shared view that references a session variable? For example, "Owner" is "[[session.user]]"? This would make our shared views "shareable" and relevant to the user using the shared view. Currently, we would need to generate a passcode for each user and set this view up individually, which seems like a lot of unnecessary admin overhead.

In the both the Supplier Catalog and Supplier Contracts view, the "Filter by Owner" dropdown is unordered, which makes it a bit difficult to find a name when you have more than a couple of owners. Could we please change this to be listed alphabetically, as is the case for the other filters?

Don't mind me - I just found the Supported Languages setting

We have a requirement to add Japanese translations to some of our services and catalog items, however Japanese is not an option in the translation settings. Can we please add this as an option. Thanks, Gareth

Alternatively, please re-instate the "Entity : Services : Created/Updated" event source in the webhooks so we can extract and publish this information to a wiki when changes are made to the services.

We would like to request some finer-grained permissions for the service portfolio. Currently, the built-in Services Manager role has the following permissions: View Service Records Create Service Records Edit Service Records Delete Service Records Manage Subscriptions There doesn't appear to be any permissions controlling access to the Priority Levels and SLAs. This means that even though I have created a "Services User" role, with only the "View Service Records" permission, anyone with only this permission still has access to edit, delete and create both existing priorities and SLAs. Additionally, there are no permissions to restrict who can create bulletins or FAQs against a service. We would like to give our agents read-only access to the service portfolio so they can see the details and custom fields we carry which hold important contextual information, however, we cannot allow everyone to have free reign to edit, delete and otherwise change the priorities, SLAs, bulletins and FAQs.

We have noticed an inconsistency with the advanced search filters in the Request List. If we filter on "Source" is "Email", the request list is correctly filtered. However, if we filter instead on "Source" is not "Email", then the filter is ignored and returns all the requests.

Thanks @NeilWJ The workaround works for me, although I ended up using the API to manually create my webhook earlier.

When you click the "Create Webhook" button, after filling in all the details, nothing happens. Editing and saving an existing webhook works fine, but I am unable to create a new one.

We are unable to create new webhooks. When clicking the "Create Webhook" button, nothing happens. Looking a the browser Developer Console, there is no network activity initiated when clicking the button.

@CraigP I had a similar issue and it requires that either your service has a default BPM set, or that you explicitly set the bpmName attribute in your request. The API does not lookup and use the BPM set against a catalog item.

When using the "Copy Request" functionality, request specific fields (such as h_implementation_plan, h_backout_plan, etc on Change Requests) are ignored. I looked through all the "app.request.copy.*" settings in service manager, and there are no options to enable the copying of type-specific fields. From what I can see this prevents effective copying of request types other than Incident and Service Request. Could we please include an option that allows copying of the type-specific fields for Change Requests, Problems and Known Errors?

Could we get an update on when this fix will land? I had been hoping it would've dropped with the latest update, but it appears not to have made it in.

@Steve Giller yes, "Open URL" action works as expected, its just in the Popup action that the variable substitution doesn't work. In my example, I passed the parameter "igu=1" to Google which allows their page to be embeddable and it definitely works as an embeddable page (see my 2nd screenshot).

When creating a custom button using the "Popup" action, any variables added to the URL are not substituted when the button is activated. For example, trying to open a Google search on the request summary in a popup results in a search for "[[h_summary]]", rather than the actual summary of the request. See below screenshots for examples: 1) Custom Button definition: 2) Result of variable substitution:

+1 for this please! I struggled for ages with this one before realising that either 2 calls were needed or the external system had to have the bpm name hardcoded (not an ideal scenario!)

We have an issue where a request has been placed on hold, waiting for customer. If the customer responds via a timeline update, the request correctly comes off hold. However, if the customer responds via a comment to an existing timeline update, the request stays on hold and the owner is not notified of any activity. How can we ensure to force a request to come off hold in the 2nd scenario (when a comment is added rather than a full timeline update)? Thanks, Gareth

We are busy with the process of importing all our suppliers and contracts into Hornbill, however we have a number of contracts with suppliers that are facilitated by resellers. At present, there is no way in Hornbill to show this relationship, however I did see a roadmap item for this that was accepted last year, and we'd like to +1 this for consideration.

+1 for us too. On both technical and business owner but also on the additional custom fields. We had all this information and more in our previous service catalogue and had to lose it all in the migration to Hornbill due to the limit on available fields.

When changing the service connections for a service via the UI, new records are being created in the database. In the below screenshot from "Database Direct", the original records for service id 13 are h_id's: 7, 8 & 9. Selecting the "All" button for all permutations in the service has caused additional rows to be created. This has the downside of not allowing connections to see the timeline or comment as expected when we've supposedly allowed collaboration. I have had to manually delete records from the database using the "data:deleteRecord" API to get this working as expected, so that the database looks like the 2nd screenshot below. { "@service": "data", "@method": "deleteRecord", "params": { "application": "com.hornbill.servicemanager", "table": "h_itsm_service_connections", "keyValue": ["9","597","600","7","595","598","8","596","599"] } } Table1: Incorrect Table2: Correct - after running "data:deleteRecord" API

+1 - we had this functionality in our previous portal and are definitely missing it in Hornbill.

+1 for us - this would be super helpful