Martyn Houghton
-
Posts
4,014 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
86
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Enhancement Requests
Posts posted by Martyn Houghton
-
-
Took me a while to remember where Priorities are not managed as they are separate to Service Level Agreements as such. In the Admin interface > Service Manager > Assessments > Priority, you can mark the ones you no longer needs as not active.
Cheers
Martyn
-
That is certainly our understanding and I believe Hornbill's view expressed previously is that they would not support changing the type. Do not recall any mention of the Enterprise Edition in relation to this.
Cheers
Martyn
-
I will replicate and log as a Support Request, as it seems to be specific to us.
Cheers
Martyn
-
I have a live and published Custom form linked to an existing simple list as the data provider.
I open the IC double click on the Custom Form, change the drop down to use an alternative Simple List and apply the changes.
Click on Test IC and the test is still using the original simple list source and not the updated one.
Publish the IC, and repeat Test again it does pick up the updated simple list source.
Cheers
Martyn
-
I suspect this is a specific use case bug.
If you amend an existing node, such as by changing the data source for an existing field, the change in source is not picked up when testing unless you publish it.
Most maintenance work will be updating existing nodes, so the test mode needs to cope with this as well as adding new nodes.Cheers
Martyn
-
I am not sure if I am missing a step or just not using it correctly, but it seems you have to publish the IC in order for the 'Test' to pick up your changes.
Surely the point of testing is to test it before you publish a new version?
Cheers
Martyn
-
Some of our users but not all were having the exact same issue with the Default Language field not being populated and unable to save changes to existing FAQ's.
-
I can see there have been a number of new suspend nodes just released in the latest Service Manager build, but this outstanding one that was on the roadmap, marked as released but wasn't, identified as still outstanding, seems to have been lost again?
Cheers
Martyn
-
1
-
-
Can the font and background colours on Intelligent Captures in the Service Manager when using Dark Mode be updated to be suitable for use with this mode as the current combinations of black on dark grey and white on light grey are not workable?
Cheers
Martyn
-
-
The colours used in Dark Mode for the Timesheet module are not readable, especially the summary totals - white on light blue. The blue on black is just about readable but could do with more contrast.
Cheers
Martyn
-
This is possible as the ChangeService node allows this in the workflow so there must be an API endpoint for it. Hopefully someone from Hornbill will be able to advise.
Cheers
Martyn
-
-
As part of our Enterprise Service Management work to automate processes and get our internal customers to log requests via the Employee Portal we have Intelligent Capture (IC) that use Data Providers to capture information such as external Organisation lookup.
However due to a current system restriction these are blocked and do not return any data for Basic Users.
This means we cannot validate and trust the values entered into fields and then pass into workflow automation.
Can we raise an enhancement request for allowing Basic User access to the Data Providers.
Cheers
Martyn
-
1
-
-
-
Linked to our earlier request for admin api integration, can we also request the following additional API functions.
- Create an Idea with - https://www.aha.io/api/resources/ideas/create_an_idea
- Create an Idea with Custom Fields - https://www.aha.io/api/resources/ideas/create_an_idea_with_custom_fields
- Create an Idea Comment created by an Aha! user - https://www.aha.io/api/resources/idea_comments/create_an_idea_comment_created_by_an_aha!_user_(specified_by_id)
- Create an Idea Comment created by an ideas portal user - https://www.aha.io/api/resources/idea_comments/create_an_idea_comment_created_by_an_ideas_portal_user_(specified_by_id)
Thanks
Martyn
-
Any update on this and whether Updates will now use a template to get to this propose option?
Cheers
Martyn
-
Thanks for the clarification. Will the node help text be updated to reflect this now?
As we are using this in a BPM and the version information is variable, the manual option is not applicable.
Therefore I suspect we will be raising an enhancement to have a 'data provider' option for retrieving a list of versions for a selected Vendor/Product combination to get the raw Version ID and the display h_version text value to capture the information for the workflow.
Cheers
Martyn
-
1
-
-
Both items relate to the customer side. We are being asked questions in tenders from public sector bodies about the accessibility of the Service Desk Portal which is made up of the Customer Portal and Live Chat on the former.
Cheers
Martyn
-
Linked to the post for the Customer Portal (link below) about accessibility, can you advise of any testing and design you have undertaken with make Live Chat workable with assistive technologies such as screen readers etc?
Cheers
Martyn
-
+1 for us as well
-
Currently, the assetsCreateSoftware node only allows you to populate the User and Owner of the asset but does not allow you to 'Enable Sharing' and populate the Shared with, in our case as an external support provideer we want to set this to the external organisation as we are creating license assets for on-prem customers.
Cheers
Martyn
-
We are creating a Software Asset via the BPM Node assetsCreateSoftware node, but the Version field even though we have tried passing it as a hard code string and as a string variable will not populate the asset. The string values match the version string populated in the Asset Management module for the Vendor and Product combination.
The node succeeds in creating the asset but the version value us not populatated.Cheers
MArtyn
-
Update Request -> Service
in Service Manager
Posted
Arh - I think we too many Enterprises, as there is the Enterprise Edition subscription and as @Berto2002 remembered the discussion at the previous HUG about the new ESM Service Catalog model.