samwoo Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 Hello, Every night we receive an email from another company into the Hornbill inbox which contains files we need to upload into another system. We have an auto-routing rule which creates the ticket in Hornbill automatically. Because we cannot set this auto-routing rule to automatically apply attachments to the request, we are having to manually go into the email using the Source: Email then ticking the attachments to apply them to the request. However... I was curious as to why the "related" requests are sorted in an order where the "Open" tickets are on the last page? And is there an explanation as to why the email is unable to auto-identify the request that I am applying the attachments to after a ticket has already been raised for it using the Auto-Routing rule? If we have the option within a specific auto-routing rule to auto-attach files (they have no signatures or any other images) then we wouldn't need to do this... If this is not going to be an option for now or at all, I was wondering if the order of requests when applying an email to a ticket be changed accordingly so the Open tickets are on the first page?See the open ticket is on the last page. Can this be improved in any way? Thanks, Samuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 46 minutes ago, samwoo said: I was curious as to why the "related" requests are sorted in an order where the "Open" tickets are on the last page? Just a coincidence here... the requests are actually ordered by reference.... 47 minutes ago, samwoo said: And is there an explanation as to why the email is unable to auto-identify the request that I am applying the attachments to after a ticket has already been raised for it using the Auto-Routing rule? It does actually (it should be among the returned references)... but it also returns active requests raised for the customer in case the email would need to be applied to another request... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samwoo Posted June 13, 2018 Author Share Posted June 13, 2018 Thanks @Vic, 22 minutes ago, Victor said: Just a coincidence here... the requests are actually ordered by reference.... Can I request for an enhancement for the ordering of the list to sort by Status first (status.open, status.onhold, status.resolved) then by Request Reference? 22 minutes ago, Victor said: It does actually (it should be among the returned references)... but it also returns active requests raised for the customer in case the email would need to be applied to another request... Hmm it doesn't seem to be doing that for us, if I were to open an email from within the Request to re-apply the non-attached attachments to the ticket, I have to manually find the Request Reference or paste it in to select it... is something amiss here? Thanks, Samuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 1 hour ago, samwoo said: I were to open an email from within the Request to re-apply the non-attached attachments to the ticket Does the email contain the request reference in subject or body? 1 hour ago, samwoo said: Can I request for an enhancement for the ordering of the list to sort by Status first (status.open, status.onhold, status.resolved) then by Request Reference? Something for @Steven Boardman to consider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samwoo Posted June 13, 2018 Author Share Posted June 13, 2018 5 minutes ago, Victor said: Does the email contain the request reference in subject or body? Ah no it doesn't, since its an automated email from an external system from another company so no way to generate a Hornbill reference to include in the subject or body. I guess there is no way to do this. Thanks @Victor, Samuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 I think the issue with attachments not added by routing rule operations (aka autoresponder) is something that is on our dev list... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samwoo Posted June 13, 2018 Author Share Posted June 13, 2018 9 minutes ago, Victor said: I think the issue with attachments not added by routing rule operations (aka autoresponder) is something that is on our dev list... I can totally understand why it shouldn't be on by default, however there are sources we know and trust that wouldn't have all the extra attachments and signatures so I'm pleased that it's on the Dev List for development at some point in the future Thanks, Samuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now