Steve Giller

The very simple answer is - no.

I would imagine it would be the "name" parameters are not correct, however I do not have a definitive list of what they would be.

Could you explain what you're trying to achieve here? Anything that is not visible will be for a reason - e.g. the Customer form is not required as the Portal knows who the Customer is already, and the Connections form would expose the names of every Co-Worker and Contact which would not be appropriate information to be made available to end users.

The Edit Asset form is a complex form for a single asset and is effectively doing the JOIN I mention above (along with a number of others) however this is for a single Asset. The Asset View is by design much simpler, as to perform multiple complex joins on potentially tens of thousands of Assets would introduce unmanageable performance issues. There is no requirement for all of your Users to create Reports, once created they can be run on a schedule (or ad-hoc if required, although I would expect audits to be fairly regular) and the results downloaded or emailed to any User who requires them.

I don't have a spare device to register against my account, but the QR code that my Instance generates is valid and read by a QR Code Scanner.

A system-provided simple list would not work, as you would either have to see every variation for every customer on every system, or make it editable in which case errors would occur if the customer deleted a required value, like "post" - and simple lists don't have a "you can't delete this value" function. Creating your own simple list and adding it to a custom field that only shows when an analyst is raising the Request, or fully automating updating the source in the BPM would not suffer from these issues.

<generalProperties>[{"name":"description","value":"description"},{"name":"room","value":"room"}]</generalProperties> Using the two values you gave as examples, updating those in the UI uses the above syntax.

@Gareth Cantrell There is a change in progress for this, but this requires co-ordinating over multiple applications to ensure all areas of the Product stay coherent. Keep an eye out for ESP Build >3751, however taking the other actions that need to progress into consideration this will be at least two weeks away.

That's not an out-of-the-box list.

If you mean that you want the 3rd Request to be linked to both Requests 1 and 2 and visible in the Linked Requests panel on both, only by linking manually.

In the Workflow, after the Request is resolved, get the Request Details to ensure all values are up to date, compare the Service and Category to the one you want, and if they match use a Send Email node to generate the email.

Just run the Description through the String Utilities and use the output from that node.

Firstly, there is no separate Asset Manager application, it is part of Service Manager. You can do a search for Assets by Site on the Asset Details form in Intelligent Capture, I think this should achieve what you're aiming for with regards to linking the correct Asset, however I'm fairly certain that without a Service Manager License there is no way to make the specific Asset Details other than the name and type visible to the control room analysts.

I'm sure this can be achieved, unfortunately from the description above I'm not sure of the scenario you're describing. Could you provide a little more detail, please?

Thanks for the update, glad that's working for you now.

@James Ainsworth I believe this is the issue we resolved for @Berto2002 on a Support Request - there was a problem with the Workflow that was preventing it from spawning. @Gareth Cantrell if James's suggestions don't resolve the issue raise a Support Request and we'll take a look.

Your current log files are available from the Admin view under Platform Configuration->Logs.

The full order is detailed in the API Documentation.

Where? (The call will be order-specific) A working API call that we used was: <methodCall service="apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/ServiceRequests" method="logServiceRequest"> <params> <summary>test</summary> <description>test</description> <customerId>5025</customerId> <customerType>1</customerType> <ownerId>ownerId</ownerId> <teamId>test/team/</teamId> <status>status.open</status> <sourceType>Analyst</sourceType> <sourceId>userId</sourceId> <serviceId>28466</serviceId> <catalogId>57784</catalogId> <catalogName>SR catalog</catalogName> <bpmName>example-hornbill-service-request-process</bpmName> </params> </methodCall>

Both of these issues have been flagged to development. They have not yet been reviewed so I don't have any further information for you at this stage. Both of these issues, while not necessarily connected, occur with anchors - i.e. <a href="https://www.google.com">Google</a> - rather than a plain url. The workaround would be to only use plain urls - e.g. https://www.google/com - in your emails which are always successfully inserted as links in the Description, however as these are incoming that may not be under your control.

Beat me to it, @Jim

Always a tricky one to answer - while you can argue that technically an automated "Your Request has been logged" email is a response, most companies find a more useful criteria and these can vary quite widely. As a Customer I would personally feel that a meaningful response would fit the bill, which would tend to be the first human contact, whether that's 1st line acknowledging the Request is in the queue and waiting to be processed, or the actual assigning of a Request to an analyst. As always it'll be interesting to see what people feed back with.

Can you clarify what you're asking please, @samwoo On the face of it, I'm reading this as you have a third-party tool that makes changes in AD; in the normal scheme of things the next User Import will have those changes reflected in Hornbill, which wouldn't require any integration. I'm assuming there's more to the requirement than this, so some detail on your objectives would be useful here.

If I remember correctly this was addressed - please let us know if not.

Hi @Claire Holtham I've reproduced this in my Instance and have reported it to development.