David Hall

Hi @Martyn Houghton Thanks for feeding that back, I'll speak to James regarding the best location to place the information you mentioned. I suspect we'll place in somewhere with a link from the nodes page here. The information I plan to add will be as follows: Pausing/Resuming/Stopping the Resolution timer By default the settings are configured to provide no change to existing behaviour whether you use BPM or settings to control timer resolution The settings provided to pause or stop the resolution timer when resolving a request are as follows: app.request.paus

Hi @JoanneG Thanks for the post. Firstly it sounds like a request custom field would be the likely way forward here, this would keep the value stored against the request, allow you to report/filter on that value and perform escalations based on that value. Whether you use progressive capture to populate that data really depends on where you are able to capture it. If you want the person raising the request to select the ward from a list etc as part of the raising process then a progressive capture custom form https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php?title=Customised_Forms could be used to

Hi @Ann-MarieHolloway Thanks for the post. If it is just some cases that create new calls while most correctly update then the most likely cause as you say is that a rule above it is being processed first (rules will be processed top to bottom) which is set to create a call or perhaps the expression did not match on those specific calls and you would need to check that the request reference is being correctly matched. You probably already have checked here, but just for reference I'll point to the docs here https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php?title=Email_Routing_Rules , might be wo

Hi @Mark (ESC) Just trying this out locally, all appears to work for me with the attached configuration, however I am able to replicate that error you posted when I change the email template name to something invalid. As a starting point I'd probably double check that the defined email template still correctly exists with that name in the admin tool at Home > System > Email > Templates, if that looks ok perhaps test with a different or new template to see if that has the same issue? Kind Regards, Dave

Hi @Paul Alexander This message will appear on inactive processes which contain custom forms that have had changes made since the form node was added into the progressive capture. The message is to explain that form changes e.g. addition/removal of fields will now be reflected in the available fields in the form node but these changes will not take any effect until you save/reactivate the process. Hope that makes sense? Kind Regards, Dave.

Hi @Martyn Houghton I've just checked and unfortunately these are currently a fixed list of set options rather a simple list, I suspect because they needed to be translatable and this was not possible originally with simple lists. If you have specific options that you would like added then perhaps you can post them up and @James Ainsworth can have a look whether we can raise a change to incorporate those into the existing fixed options list or possibly migrate to use of a simple list in the future. Kind Regards, Dave.

Hi @Ann Thanks for the post. I've just been trying this out and it appears I'm seeing the same issue with the time addition on the resolution tab, we'll do some more investigation to see if we can find out what the problem it. Kind Regards, Dave.

Hi Helen, Just checking if you mean a link in the format such as this example? https://service.hornbill.com/testinstance/servicemanager/log/123/incident/456/ There is no reason I know of why the links would operate differently from an email or a Word document, I've tried the above format link and from email and Word it will take me to the log form of the catalog item. Kind Regards, Dave.

Hi @Sandip Bhogal Thanks for posting. The SLA configuration in your screenshots looks to be ok... when you are creating the new ticket for HR.. where are you seeing I1, I2, I3, I4, I5, P1, P2, P3, P4 etc is this the priority selection form as defined by the list here? Kind Regards, Dave.

@HHH Sorry for the delay in responding we seem to have missed this due to the moving between forums. To confirm in your scenario originally posted, once Anna has been moved to Organization B within Hornbill.... Anna - Will no longer see the request in the portal as the request is tied to Organization A (despite still being the customer associated) Andrew - Will still be able to see the request via the "Organizations View" being granted Bob and Betty - Will have no visibility of the request as it is tied to Organization A, only those raised from this point for Organ

@Paul Alexander thanks for posting up. I've just been checking this out and you are using it correctly, however I am seeing a similar issue to you where it does not appear to be correctly applying the filtering for the "before x days" option. I'll raise a problem to investigate this further, in the meantime the "before" filtering option with a specific date is filtering as I would expect so I'm not sure if you're able to achieve what you need to with that as a temporary workaround? Kind Regards, Dave.

Hi @JAquino Thanks for the post and sorry for the inconvenience. It looks like a change for the recent integration with Hornbill Supplier Manager may be the reason behind this but we'll need to investigate further. We have a defect raised for this issue which we'll look at as soon as possible and I've added you as an affected connection. Kind Regards, Dave

Hi @Adrian Simpkins All of the SLA notification functionality was implemented before we had any concept of the analyst availability options etc so currently all notifications will be sent to all relevant team members/defined recipients regardless of being marked on holiday or not. I'll raise this internally for this to be considered when we next make changes in this area. Kind Regards, Dave.

Hi @Paul Alexander Thanks for raising this, will investigate and get a problem raised to look at this. Kind Regards, Dave.

Hi Marc and @Mark Priest I believe this is related to this previous post, have been informed that these have just been checked again and should now be functioning, if it doesn't start working please post back. Kind Regards, Dave.