Steve Giller

Swap them around - send an email to the Team to say they're being assigned the Task, and follow that with the Human Task node - by the time they get the email the Task will be there.

I've just tested this, and I can only recreate this if I create the Role while in the Platform section. Roles created in the Service Manager section appear as such when assigning for me.

What you're asking for here is basically a sub-Request, not an Auto Task. As soon as you're stopping the flow to wait for a User Input it's no longer Automatic. The idea of a sub-Request, falling somewhere between a Human Task and a Request isn't invalid in itself, but the sole point of an Auto Task is to click a button and it does "stuff" You could, of course, be creative and use a Human Task to gather the information, and populate Custom Fields within the Request with the BPM before clicking the AutoTask button and utilising those fields.

I've tagged this as an Enhancement Request for you.

I don't know if this is possible, but I've tagged this as an Enhancement request anyway.

Could you show us an example of this, it's not clear from the description what's happening here?

That worked fine on my Instance. Created the Template, sent an email from a BPM, reopened the Template - all good.

All of Hornbill's emails are HTML. This makes me feel that what you're pasting is invalid, and is failing to update the Template. What are you copying/pasting, and, possibly more importantly, from where? If it's from a Microsoft document that's probably a very bad idea.

No. As far as I'm aware, the External Authorisations are provided "as-is" and there are no plans to allow customisation for these. I believe you'll need to use Authorisations if you wish to customise templates etc.

No, as implied by the name, these are database fields and database fields require a Type. Can you give us an indication of what you're using the Custom Fields for, please? It may make more sense to add fields as a default if they'd benefit other Customers.

@Paul Alexander We've found an issue where you cannot see closed, linked requests if there are no open, linked requests. This will be fixed in an upcoming build.

I'm not sure what you are reporting on here. Is this an email sent from the request to a Customer, an Owner applying a Customer's email to the Request, or something else? I don't recognise the request_lastemailsent field (there are a lot of tables in Hornbill!) can you clarify where you've found this? I think the short version is going to be that this is something that's not really practical to report on, but if we know what you're trying to achieve and how this may spark some ideas.

What Custom Attribute (in what table) are you storing it in? That is the standard format for a DateTime - for example if you filter on Date Logged against {{DATE:startofweek}} this works fine and that is stored in the same format. It may simply be that you need to store it in a DateTime field.

So I'm answering to cover multiple scenarios rather than just this specific configuration I'm just going to post this image!

@Giuseppe Iannacone It does, however it goes on to say "Filter the requests to be deleted using the following parameters" Which, for me, means that by default it deletes everything but you narrow down using the filters. The dryrun option will show what would have happened without making any changes, so do ensure that is used when testing. You could also test against an entity that you're not currently using if you want to be really safe.

Unfortunately I wouldn't know - that would be one to ask Microsoft, unless one of our Developers is aware and can drop in. The documentation isn't on the wiki, there is a guide (including a link to the Microsoft documentation) under the blue Help button on the node.

What are you using to trigger it, and where in Hornbill are you doing so? If a BPM node, what's the configuration?

@Giuseppe Iannacone It looks like you're trying to delete Requests - but you set CleanRequests to false. Note: I've not used this tool myself, please use the dryrun option if you're taking my word for it ...

@Paul Alexander In the meantime the instructions on how to uncover it are on the wiki.

I've tagged this as an Enhancement Request as this is not currently possible.

Our developers are looking into this issue, if you have any further information please let us know.

The Reference for this is KE00172771

I've tagged this as an Enhancement Request. Note: The Microsoft API for sending a chat message does not cater for mentions, so this would be a completely new operation and Development would need to assess the requirement before making a decision.

We don't have a "Get Asset Details" node available, it is possible to have any number (including zero!) of assets attached to a Request, so there would be no way for the BPM to be certain that it was returning the details for the correct asset.

No. If the field is not already available you can't simply add one. This may be achievable with a bit of creative thinking, however. My first instinct would be to have the Workflow start by checking if the Request has an Owner. If so, copy the Date Raised to a Custom Field. If not, lock all actions except Assign, wait for Request Owner, then copy the current date/time to the above Custom Field. There is also the h_itsm_request_team_assignment table. The schema should explain what it's doing (and why it's not a simple table to use) but it may hold the information you need.