David Hall

Hi @RobPeck Great news, no problem at all. Regards, Dave.

@RobPeck Thanks for the screenshot, will discuss with the team to see if we can understand why this would only be occurring for a single user. Regards, Dave

Hi @RobPeck Strange one. It looks like you are using Chrome, if so if you open the console (ctrl + shift + I) and reload the new request page, do you see any errors in the console? Regards, Dave

Hi @RobPeck The status on your instance looks OK and I'm not seeing this issue locally. Have you tried clearing browser caches etc as a first step? Just for further information, is this affecting all users or just yourself? and are other Hornbill views broken in the same way or is it just raising requests? Kind Regards, Dave.

Hi @Alberto M The fix for this was made available on the 9th March. Kind Regards, Dave

What's Changed Assets: the property 'Location Type' has been enhanced with a new value (Virtual). CC recipients will now be displayed in Request timeline updates and will also be available as an additional output parameter from the BPM node Get Request Info -> Source Email. What's Fixed Various fixes for the Employee Portal. Employee Portal: Unable to raise a Change Request as a basic user. {PM00161539} Requests list counters show a value of zero when using the "I'm a member" filter. {PM00161837} Asset Additional Properties fields not being audited. {PM00161589} SLM Rule processing fails when using multiple "contains" conditions against custom fields.{PM00161664} Intermittent issue when 'Last Updated Date' is not updated when posting to the Timeline.{PM00161553} Enhance the Quick Request Search feature to work with just the right most numbers of a reference.{PM00158414} No option displayed to unlink a corporate SLA from within a service.{PM00161695} Request category tab can not be configured to be active when a request is on hold.{PM00161727}

Hi @Alberto M I've tried some more tests locally in various scenarios with different email types but currently I'm, not able to replicate. I spoke with our platform team and apparently there was a scenario similar to this in the past where if the inbound email did not have a plain text body the HTML version was being interpreted and taking the txt file content into account. The logic was updated a long while back so that in such cases a plain text version is generated from the HTML and should prevent this issue. Due to the fact that I'm unable to replicate in my environment, it might be best to raise a support request with a specific instance of an email/request that has this issue, that way the specific email can be analysed to look for any possible issue. Kind Regards, Dave.

Hi @AKetteringham Just following up on this post, are you still experiencing issues or is this now working correctly for you? Kind Regards, Dave.

@HHH OK that makes sense, @James Ainsworth something we can consider for future development? Dave.

Hi @HHH Its not currently possible to disable or remove the field, but you can choose to make it optional or mandatory via the application setting guest.app.requests.assign.commentMandatory Kind Regards, Dave

Hi @Alberto M I've just double checked with the setup above and as I would have expected, the txt file is attached to the request but the timeline entry just contains the email subject and text content. To my knowledge there is no functionality that would inspect any attachment content so I'm not sure how the above would occur. Kind Regards, Dave

Hi @Alberto M That's not something I've seen before... can you just confirm which operation you are using in the routing rule e.g. Kind Regards, Dave

@Adrian Simpkins I could be wrong, but initially to me this looks like there is no suitable (associated) app installed on that individual user's machine for whatever file type that is trying to be opened from the request, e.g. no associated app to open a .txt file etc. This looks like a local client issue rather than an issue with Hornbill based on the error you have posted. Kind Regards, Dave

HI @Alberto M Apologies for the inconsistencies, if you are able to maintain a list of references and the required rating, once the fix has been released next week, if you raise a support query with the relevant data we can look to get those values corrected. Kind Regards, Dave.

Hi @Paul Alexander Sorry we haven't been able to get the bottom of the specific issue as yet by way of replication. I think at this point it might be worth raising this as a support issue and then we can tackle it from there, perhaps we'll need to see the specific issue on your instance in order to find the underlying issue. Kind regards, Dave