Jump to content

Steve Giller

Hornbill Staff
  • Content Count

    4,136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    98

Steve Giller last won the day on March 29

Steve Giller had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

378 Excellent

2 Followers

About Steve Giller

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Recent Profile Visitors

3,299 profile views
  1. This issue has now been resolved and will be available in the next Project Manager release. If any other Customers are experiencing the same issue the workaround is to move the progress slider to 100% and Update the task, this will mark it as complete.
  2. @chrislord Extended Mobile Access Controls are available as part of the Enterprise edition, see the comparison of Platform Editions for further details.
  3. Functionality is available to "blank" values in the Database Asset Import tool (see the post here) which can be configured to point to a CSV file or a database such as SCCM.
  4. Hi @Ade M This appears to be an issue with case-sensitivity, and is fixed in the latest Core update which will be applied during your Maintenance Window tonight.
  5. Hi @Anne K The first think to check would be the that the data is populated. I'm assuming here that it's Requests you're reporting on - you can open the request and ensure that it does have a Category, and it's worth noting that Requests can have both a Request Category and a Resolution Category, so it's important to make sure you're reporting on the right one.
  6. Hi @RobW You will definitely want to migrate to the current LDAP User Import Tool as this has a number of improvements and fixes, caters for changes that Microsoft have made, and brings the config into the Hornbill Platform so you can edit it through the familiar UI rather than typing in a JSON file. The wiki page has all the information you need, and you can base the configuration on your existing JSON by importing the file. If you have any further questions after reading the wiki page please ask here so we can assist.
  7. I haven't tested this, but if the email is consistently formatted you could experiment with locking all available actions on a Request so Users effectively cannot update it, setting the Request to On Hold, setting a "Wait for Status Change" node, and finally having a Routing Rule for the incoming email that updates the Request, taking the Request Off Hold and triggering the required Status change. There are probably a number of potential pitfalls here, first of all certain Roles allow "Locked" actions to be performed, and any one of the steps above might have a "gotcha" I've not considere
  8. Any email can be used to create a Request with Email Routing Rules. The key is in having the email present the information in a consistent format, which you would expect to be the case for an alert email.
  9. @James.Johnson That's correct, they are text files. What are you hoping to do with them once you've exported them?
  10. Without looking at the Workflow itself it is tricky to diagnose, but the error refers to TaskAnswers - you have three inputs to the previous Parallel Processing node; from Request Validation IN, Request Validation SR, and No Match. If the Decision node that is in error is branching on either of those tasks it can only have a defined answer for one or neither of them, never both. If it's branching on the results from a different Task we'll need a wider view of the Process.
  11. The Service Desk Admin role will have the ability to restart a Process
  12. Have a look at the Email Templates wiki page, under the ESP Conditions section. I think that should help you achieve your goal here.
  13. I would delete the decision node and recreate it. Without picking apart the Process it would be difficult to make anything more than a basic assumption, but I highly doubt you have called the Node [object Object] so that suggests a problem to me - possibly from copy/pasting a node or nodes?
  14. From that info it would appear to confirm that "Marking" a response is not that same as the request breaching - the h_withinresponse is marked as failed as soon as it's passed (so the indicator goes red) but the "Mark" action records the time the response was made etc. I suspect that Boards would be a better mechanism for the view you're trying to achieve.
  15. Without checking the database I can't be sure, but as the Request has breached the Response time then I would expect that Within Response Time is now set (to false) and preventing the filter picking it up.
×
×
  • Create New...