Jump to content

David Hall

Hornbill Developer
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by David Hall

  1. 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.pauseResolutionTimerOnResolve (Default OFF) app.request.resumeResolutionTimerOnReopen (Default OFF) app.request.stopResolutionTimerOnResolve (Default ON) app.request.stopResolutionTimerOnClose (Default OFF) For those using settings to control resolution timers: You should choose the relevant settings to meet your needs, but note that app.request.stopResolutionTimerOnResolve will take precedence over app.request.pauseResolutionTimerOnResolve so ensure only the one you want to use is enabled For those using BPM nodes to control resolution timers: If you are using BPM nodes to control resolution timers the four settings above should all be turned off; If any settings are enabled then they will take precedence over BPM actions. To enable pause/resume of a resolved request you can add the Timer > Pause Resolution Timer or Timer > Resume Resolution Timer BPM nodes as required in your BPM process. If you have any feedback or if there is anything unclear then let me know and I can make any suitable adjustments. Kind Regards, Dave.
  2. 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 do this and you can map that selection into a request custom form as detailed here https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php?title=Mapping_Fields_from_Customised_Forms On the other hand if you have any means to automatically determine the ward then you could automate the population of the value from within a BPM process, again populating the custom field which you can then use to filter etc. Hope that helps, if you need any more info just post back. Kind Regards, Dave.
  3. 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 worth checking the last couple of lines regarding reference in the routing rule if you are using the mentioned operations. Kind Regards, Dave.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. @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 Organization B will be visible. Hope that clarifies the situation. Kind Regards, Dave.
  11. @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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. Hi @Paul Alexander Thanks for raising this, will investigate and get a problem raised to look at this. Kind Regards, Dave.
  15. 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.
  16. Hi @HHH As per this screenshot you should be able to access the Contact -> Archive Contact task from the collaboration app to archive a contact via a variable. Hope that helps. Kind Regards, Dave.
  17. Hi @Adrian Simpkins I've just reviewed this and the popup is already a large popup and the view provides the usual things such as pagination, a search filter and column sorting in order to find the relevant snippets. If there is a specific scenario that your analyst has which is causing them problems then please let me know and we can take another look. Regards, Dave.
  18. Hi @Adrian Simpkins I would have expected the node to correctly mark the response and end the timers, but with the change over and the SLA change then its possible that this is causing a scenario with an issue that I have not seen before. If this persists with requests logged after the change over then by all means come back and we can take a further look. Regards, Dave
  19. Hi @Adrian Simpkins It all depends on your BPM process being used for the request and where within that process the Timer -> Mark Response Time node is placed, we do not automatically mark it on any one specific action as every customer will make their own business decision as to what point in the process it should be marked so you should use the node in your BPM at the appropriate stage. The change of SLA will update the targets, but if the target has already been marked then it will not generate any new timers/events for that request. Does that help to answer your question? Regards, Dave
  20. @Adrian Simpkins Ah ok... so it simply looks like the response timer has never been marked... therefore the timer and escalations will remain active until you reach the relevant stage of your BPM process where you call the BPM Node Timer -> Mark Response Time . In this scenario the change of status to resolved or closed will not automatically mark the response timer. Regards, Dave.
  21. Hi @Adrian Simpkins Thanks for the post and the timeline of events, could you confirm when the response target itself was marked? Just trying to confirm if these escalations that are incorrectly firing are as a result of the SLA change, so it would be useful to know when the response was marked and whether the request was on-hold or not at the time of the SLA change. Kind Regards, Dave.
  22. @Martyn Houghton As you suggested all our operations should be working in UTC time and we'll format into locale adjusted times on the front end so comparisons in UTC should be correct. Kind Regards, Dave.
  23. @Darren Rose @Paul Alexander Thanks for the posts. I've had a look and it looks like we unfortunately have some translation strings missing here. We'll get this corrected in the next build of Service Manager. Following the next Service Manager build update you will be able to alter the content of these strings as needed: * user.view.serviceform.requests (Request Link Text) * user.view.serviceform.documents (Documents Link Text) Kind Regards, Dave
  24. Hi @Lee Jones Thanks for the post, you can turn on suggested knowledge to be displayed as part of the request logging process. You should be able to find the details here https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/Knowledge_Centre Let us know if you have any further questions. Kind Regards, Dave.
  25. Hi @davidrb84 I've spoken to our cloud team and they are currently investigating a slow down on one of our database servers so its possible this could be the reason for the responsiveness issues you are currently seeing, they are working on the issue. Kind Regards, Dave.
  • Create New...