Jump to content

David Hall

Hornbill Developer
  • Posts

    549
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Posts posted by David Hall

  1. @Paul Alexander

    I've reviewed the code and currently months are as you say just being determined as a 4 week period, this is likely just a legacy choice due to ambiguity over what is defined as a month e.g. 28 Days in Feb/31 Days in March etc.

    I'll make an enhancement to this flowcode so that when you are defining months and we are not working against a working time calendar, we will treat "a month" as the same day in the following month etc.. so in your example 26th Feb will become 26th August, however there will of course be some exceptions e.g. adding 1 month to Jan 30th with result in March 2nd rather than a non existent February day.

    All of the datetimes are calculated and stored in UTC and formatted in the UI according to your regional settings, so the value is not one hour ahead in the database it is just being displayed as one hour ahead due to being in BST at the date in August.

    As an alternative until this is available you could:
    1.  Apply a number of days e.g. 182 days for 6 months or any of the smaller time denominations as @Victor suggests above (accepting the calendar day may not match)

    2. If you have any way to make the exact date available to the BPM at that point (e.g. a date selected custom field on a request) then you can pass in an exact date to the "On Hold Until" parameter of that flowcode which allows you to set the exact datetime.

    Regards,

    Dave.
     

  2. Hi @Jeremy

    Just wanted to check if you are still experiencing this problem?  Checking the error, the only reason it would likely occur is if the ID value of the service was not sent when it tried to do the update... so just wanted to check if something had not refreshed correctly after you added the field etc. or if the issue has persisted.  If you still have the problem, if you could outline the steps you took to encounter the error and we can see if we can replicate.

    Kind Regards,

    Dave.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

    • Like 1
  5. 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.

    • Like 1
  6. 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

    image.png

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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?

    image.png

     

    Kind Regards,

    Dave.

  12. @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.

    • Thanks 1
  13. @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.

    • Thanks 1
  14. 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

     

  15. 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.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...