Steve Giller

Currently this is not possible, so I've tagged this as an Enhancement for you. For those who are not aware, Administrators can enforce system-wide settings or allow Users to personalise their Service Manager Notification Settings using the guest.app.requests.notification.allowUserDefinedNotificationType Service Manager setting.

What is the configuration of the initial Get Request Details on the Close stage?

This part is possible, but this part is not. The Workflow is basically sequential, you can suspend and wait for an action (e.g. Suspend->Wait for New Owner) but only if there will definitely be a change at this point. You cannot have an external action (like assigning a User in the UI) interrupt the Workflow and perform an action in the BPM.

This is not currently available, the triggers for sending a notification are for Customer updates via email or selfservice. Any updates on a request that the owner has not seen will cause the request to highlight in the Request List View, though.

There is a Service Manager release scheduled for today, which will apply overnight during your Maintenance Window.

The notification will be sent to the email address connected to each User who is a member of the Team - so technically speaking if one of those Users has an email for a shared mailbox then that's where the email will be sent. However that means that all emails sent to that User will go to the shared mailbox, so this is not a recommended setup. Additionally, you can allow individual Users to manage their own notification preferences, and if the Team Member with the shared mailbox as an email turns this off, then the emails will never be sent. Therefore the short answer is no, in all practical terms this cannot be done.

Currently there is no way of doing this, as cancelling the Request also cancels the Workflow, so there is nothing that can remove the Request. There have been a couple of Enhancement Requests for this that have not made it into the queue, but they were for Service Manager Boards so it may be worth requesting an Enhancement specifically for Board Manager (i.e. by posting in the Board Manager forum)

I haven't used that node in an AutoTask - it may be a requirement that it's used in a Request Workflow, as the AutoTask runs independently of the Request. If so, having the Resolve Linked Requests node in the main BPM to run after the Master Request de-escalates would get around this.

If you're happy to leave them working without being visible for now we'll investigate internally. If we need a look at your config I'll let you know to raise a Request.

@Paul Alexander We are looking into it, at present it looks like a visual issue and even with a Support Request we don't have a solution beyond re-selecting and saving. Are the Templates working correctly apart from the CI not showing in the UI? If so I can report that it's purely a visual issue and the recommendation would be to leave them for now and we'll investigate why they're not displaying.

I don't see how that would be any less complicated - you'd still need a way of identifying the Master Request and only showing the Custom Button that triggers the AutoTask for that one request, and ensuring it was only available at the correct stage in the process. But yes, an AutoTask would work just as well.

No. Without delving into your Workflow(s) it would be impossible to say, but if they're all using the same one I'd wonder if setting a Custom Field on the Request you consider the Master, and then only taking the "Resolve Linked Requests" path if that is set would be an option here.

Unfortunately this cannot be stopped - Images are attachments. Images that appear as part of the email (embedded images) are just attachments that the email client has cleverly mixed in with the text, but fundamentally all email is text-only underneath. The email itself is some text and some attachments, it's the client that turns the image attachment into a pretty part of a signature - which itself is not really a signature, it's technically just more text that happens to be at the end of the email.

Currently ITOM does not sync the Hornbill Status to Microsoft Out Of Office status but this could be achieved. You would need at least a basic ITOM subscription for this integration.

There isn't a setting - I'm not sure that would be practical unless you needed the same person/group notified regardless of what Service/CI was being escalated. You could use Custom Buttons to achieve this by running an AutoTask, just remember to filter the button so you can't escalate a P1 to a P1, otherwise people will!

I don't believe there's a technical limit to the size of a Simple List, however a Simple List of the size you're suggesting may well cause issues depending on how/where it's being used - using it as a data source for a dropdown, for example, would make for a very unpleasant user experience.

@Paul Alexander Selecting the Catalog Item and saving fixed this for me. Creating a new Template works as expected also. I can't say for certain, as I only have one Template currently and it was created some time ago, but it's likely that the CI has at some point been deactivated. If this is happening on one, or maybe a few, Templates this may be what is happening here, if it's the same for all of them this becomes less likely.

@SJEaton You can't append an integer, that's a string function. A Request Reference is a string, not a number, you can't store it as an integer.

I'm sure it can be made to work, but it's gone a bit beyond the "thrashing it out on the forum" level at this point - the basic principals are fine but now we're past that and fine-tuning Workflows it's moving towards the Expert Services arena, I'm afraid.

I think there's a great deal of clarification needed on your requirements here. "Global" would mean that they appear on Tasks, Emails, Projects, Assets - I think it's safe to say that the same button would never be appropriate across all of these areas. Even having the same button on, for example, an Incident and a KE would have an extremely limited use case, and in the vast majority of situations could only possibly cause problems. These things are often technically possible but there are usually compelling reasons as to why they're restricted, so it takes a detailed explanation and a strong business case to look at making changes.

Or just output it to the Timeline, of course.

Is the Get Request Information -> Request Details node's Created By output not giving you that?

Doing it that way, it will never vary. If we take two simplified examples: Request A: Linked Request A1 is not needed so we append "1" to Custom Field A Linked Request A2 is needed so we create it. Linked Request A3 is needed so we create it. Linked Request A3 completes and appends "1" to Custom Field A in Request A Linked Request A2 completes and appends "1" to Custom Field A in Request A Request B: Linked Request A1 is needed so we create it. Linked Request A2 is not needed so we append "1" to Custom Field A Linked Request A3 is not needed so we append "1" to Custom Field A Linked Request A1 completes and appends "1" to Custom Field A in Request A As you can see: Request A adds "1" in steps 1, 4, and 5 Request B adds "1" in steps 2, 3, and 4 Both have different numbers of Linked Requests created but both have "111" in Custom Field A which we can test against. before moving on.

@SJEaton That's fairly straightforward. When you decide whether to raise the linked request or not you either: Raise the Linked Request and continue, or Do not raise the Linked Request and add the "finished" value to the Custom Field. In the latter case the value is prepopulated ready for when the BPM tests the Custom Field, and in the former the value will only be populated when the Linked Request is completed.

It can be requested as an enhancement (Just tag the post with "Enhancement" - I've done this one for you) but considered is up to the Developers!