Jump to content

David Hall

Hornbill Developer
  • Posts

    631
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Everything posted by David Hall

  1. Hi Lewis, Just had a look into this, the SLA action posts the entry to the timeline for auditing purposes however it is posted with 'Team' visibility so should only be visible to team members supporting the request, not to the customer on the call itself.. does that tie up with what you are seeing? Regards, Dave.
  2. Hi @sprasad We've identified the issue and we'll have this corrected in the next update of Service Manager. Kind regards, Dave
  3. Thanks for the posts... just wanted to confirm that the update to the request details pane colour and the snippets list text colour will both be fixed in the next SM update. The row colours on the request list is slightly more complicated as you suggest because they are currently system wide settings. We've raised a change request to provide a selection form so they you can override the row colours on a personal basis, we'll look to promote that change and have someone look at that as a priority. Will update you as soon as we have it ready to go into an update. Kind regards, Dave.
  4. Hi @Smurfy Have just reviewed this and the issue is that we had a fixed colour background here when it should pick it up from the theme as per the rest of the view. I've removed this now from the sidebar, it may not make the next update of service manager which is already in beta testing but will be available in the update following that. Kind regards, Dave.
  5. Hi @Estie Altering the configuration of the SLA won't apply any immediate changes to the existing requests... requests raised after the configuration change will pick up the new targets. Kind regards, Dave.
  6. Hi @EWA Not 100% sure if this is the issue, but I see in the screenshot you have the 'Contact (From Variable)' option set to 'Manual' but with no value set... it may be trying to find a contact with an empty id. Try setting that option to 'Ignore' and then try it again to see if that then adds you as a connection as defined in the 'Co-worker' option. Kind regards, Dave.
  7. Hi @Nikolaj Apologies, I've got the bottom of the issue, we'll get a a fix implemented and we'll have that out to you in the next Service Manager update scheduled next week. Kind Regards, Dave
  8. Hi @Nikolaj I think I've managed to replicate the issue, we'll do some further investigation to find out exactly what has caused the problem and will let you know when I know more. Kind Regards, Dave.
  9. Hi @Nikolaj As @Steve Giller mentioned we've tried to replicate but so far have not been able to. Can I check 2 things... 1. If you switch out of preview UI and try in the older view... does it work there or does it also fail there? 2. Can we just confirm exactly which customer selection form you are using in the intelligent capture that is not being populated Kind Regards, Dave
  10. Hi @Caroline Thanks for posting up, we'll take a look at why this is not incorporating edits made to the email and get that corrected as soon as possible. There are no current plans to record the received date when applying the email, but its something we can review for consideration at a later date. Kind regards, Dave
  11. Hi @Jim Thanks for posting, we'll have a fix included in the next Service Manager update to correct this functionality. Kind Regards, Dave.
  12. Dear all, We've included the mailbox selection in the create service form and this will be available in the next Service Manager update. The field will be an optional field at this point as a shared mailbox will not always be required against a service. Regards, Dave.
  13. Hi @Martyn Houghton Thanks for posting, will raise this as a defect for the dev team to address. Cheers, Dave.
  14. Hi @Mike Hillman @Jim Thanks for posting, we are currently investigating high numbers of results in charts and will provide an update as soon possible. Kind regards, Dave
  15. Hi @Adrian Simpkins Thanks for posting.. we were already aware of this issue which as you say is purely a display issue with a duplicate UI section. We have a fix in place which will be applied with the next update of Service Manager. Kind regards, Dave.
  16. Hi all, As per my previous comment, we have now temporarily reverted back to the original date selection controls for the request schedule tab, if you refresh shortly (next 15 mins or so) you should be able to use the functionality correctly again. Apologies for the inconvenience. Kind regards, Dave.
  17. @Jeremy @Berto2002 @AlexOnTheHill Just to update you on this issue, it is unrelated to the original issue which was fixed this morning, however, having investigated further we have confirmed the issue mentioned above around attempting to schedule an entry within a single day following the implementation of the new date component. We are assessing the options to correct this and if we are unable to determine a fix shortly we will look to return back to the original date time picker later today. Will update here again when we have a way forward. Kind regards, Dave.
  18. Hi @Berto2002 Thanks for posting. Just based on the screenshots will break this into two.. 1. 'Internet Connectivity' Example - The SLA circled in the Internet Connectivity service is marked green as 'Service Specific' so this would not be a shared SLA, however, the screenshot where it shows the blue message of no services using the SLA looks like the form for a global shared SLA. Is there any chance you have 2 SLAs with very similar names 'Service - Internet Connectivity (Schools)' vs 'Schools - Internet Connectivity' ? 2. 'Remote Support' Example - I've tested this locally and it worked as expected, based on your comment that it showed the result table eventually I'm wondering if there is a slow query based on the data which is causing problems on your instance. In this example I'd suggest raising this with the support team so that we can investigate your specific issue. Kind regards, Dave.
  19. Hi @Adrian Simpkins Yes that's correct, a manual application of an email from the inbox will not result in a request status change, only the automated action directly from a customer will take the request off-hold. Kind regards, Dave.
  20. Hi @Adrian Simpkins In this case the reason for the "resumed" timeline entry will be that if the target timer is on hold at the time of initiating the resolution. Part of the mark resolution process will be to take any timers off-hold in order to then process and complete the timer/target resolution values. Hope that makes sense, Cheers, Dave
  21. Hi @Adrian Simpkins Apologies for the delay in responding, I've been trying again to replicate this issue but unfortunately had little success so far. I undertook a detailed code review and the code has checks in place for this scenario which should prevent this occurring. I note from the screenshot that it appears the analyst was able to press the assign button twice which generated the second warning message on screen. Normally the button is disabled on the first click to prevent this happening... does every case that has been reported to you have both of these errors? I'm wondering if there is something speed/timing related that could be a factor as I'm unable to replicate under normal tests locally. Also just wanted to check if all of the errors that have been reported to you involve the same service/BPM process or whether it has been reported across various services/BPMs. Kind regards, Dave
  22. Hi @Adrian Simpkins I know you have added lane details in your case, but just an update to close this off; following a rewrite of the code that handles the service level event processing it should no longer error when a lane is not specified and will add to the first lane by default. Cheers, Dave.
  23. Thanks for the information Adrian.. there must be a pretty specific set of circumstances to allow this to happen, I'll do some more digging to see what I can figure out and get back to you. Kind regards, Dave.
  24. Hi @Adrian Simpkins I've been unable to replicate this issue so far and from a review of the code there are checks to try to ensure that only when the owner has changed does it try to update the member on a request board card. From the screenshot however I notice that there are multiple errors shown from trying to attempt to assign the request to the existing team/analyst. In my local tests we prevent the assign button being active in the browser if the selected team or owner are not different and the error is only shown when we fall back to server checks. I guess my thought is that the board error is a knock on effect from an invalid attempt to assign the request to the existing team/owner.. are you able to confirm why/how the analyst in this example is able tot try to assign to the existing team/owner? I'm just wondering if there is a specific BPM process or action within a process etc that could be causing an issue? Kind regards, Dave
  25. Hi @MichelleReaney Thanks for posting. I've just investigated and can confirm that there is indeed a defect here. I've raised a problem record and we'll look to get this corrected in the next update of service manager. Kind Regards, Dave.
×
×
  • Create New...