Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'data query'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Hornbill Platform and Applications
    • Announcements
    • Blog Article Discussions
    • General Non-Product Discussions
    • Application Beta Program
    • Collaboration
    • Employee Portal
    • Service Manager
    • IT Operations Management
    • Project Manager
    • Supplier Manager
    • Customer Manager
    • Document Manager
    • Configuration Manager
    • Timesheet Manager
    • Live Chat
    • Board Manager
    • Mobile Apps
    • System Administration
    • Integration Connectors, API & Webhooks
    • Performance Analytics
    • Hornbill Switch On & Implementation Questions
  • About the Forum
    • Announcements
    • Suggestions and Feedback
    • Problems and Questions
  • Gamers Club's Games
  • Gamers Club's LFT

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Organisation


Location


Interests


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype

Found 5 results

  1. Hello All, We currently have a number of processes utilizing the automation for authorization, with the data query in the procap set to co-workers alone, and then using the raw value for the authorization node to send an email to the selected person. This in theory would work well as our cost center managers would all have a collaboration license for this purpose. Although there is the ability to use external authorization with an email input, this extra level of protection was deemed more suitable. However, in practice, it appears that the data query in the procap even
  2. We have noticed that when looking up request in the database there are some that have usernames in the h_source_id field and then there are some that have numbers (like below) why is there differences...should these not all display the username? This number doesn't seem to initially relate to anything in the loggers account details.
  3. Please see attached. When the site name has been selected, it shows the site ID in the form review section on the right instead of the site name. Can this be corrected please?
  4. We are looking to make use of the Asset Management feature within our progressive captures, but to do so we need to be able filter by more than just Type and Class. In our case we are going to be recording customer Software installations as assets, so we would need the ability to filter by the Product field, so we can display a list of all software assets of a certain product associated with the customer. Can a SQL where like filter option be provide to make this generic to allow for all sites different class definitions? This would make the use of the Assets Management element
  5. At the moment the "Capture Outcome Fields" dynamic sources are limited to Service Manager Simple Lists. Could the option be included to allow for 'Data Query'? In our current scenario I am producing a triage/switchboard workflow to deal with the logging of requests from the Routing Rules. The Human Task gets the analyst to choose which service the request should be logged under, so then want to then capture the Catalog items for said service. The outcome being is a new linked request is logged under the correct service and the request generated by the routing rule is then closed down. The
×
×
  • Create New...