Lauren Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 Hi One of our analysts has received the following error when trying to take a request off hold: "FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_ops/smUpdateStatus): nodeName: API Call - systemSmUpdateStatus; nodeId: 15ccd0bd-6cc4-4151-94f1-95008f16b270; At 310/1: "Uncaught EspMethodCall::invoke: Operation[apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/Requests::systemSmUpdateStatus] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_ops/systemSmUpdateStatus): nodeName: Invoke Flowcode: Take Request Off Hold; nodeId: 423f928a-1112-48b2-be44-4d9525ea4edb; At 368/1: "Uncaught EspMethodCall::invoke: Operation[apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/Requests::takeRequestOffHold] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_ops/takeRequestOffHold): nodeName: Invoke FC: Take fix timer off hold; nodeId: b2982779-bde4-4c7b-a388-0d8e5104fd6b; At 564/1: "Uncaught EspMethodCall::invoke: Operation[apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/Requests::takeFixTimerOffHold] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_ops/takeFixTimerOffHold): Schema validation: Mandatory (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_ops/takeFixTimerOffHold/adjustedTime)" throw(e); _fc_node_exec_b2982779_bde4_4c7b_a388_0d8e5104fd6b" throw(e); _fc_node_exec_423f928a_1112_48b2_be44_4d9525ea4edb" throw(e); _fc_node_exec_15ccd0bd_6cc4_4151_94f1_95008f16b270" Any thoughts? I cannot replicate this at all, so am a little unsure how to resolve this. Thanks Lauren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hall Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 Hi @Lauren We'll need to investigate this a bit further, do you know what date/time this error occurred and/or what the request reference may have been so that I can have a look in the logs? Kind Regards, Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Posted February 26, 2019 Author Share Posted February 26, 2019 Hi @David Hall Thanks for coming back to me - I've since been made aware of another occurrence of this: IN00069963 - first occurred approx. 10:30 on 25/02 SR00070018 - first occurred approx. 12:20 on 25/02 The error appears whenever you try and take the requests off hold. Thanks Lauren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hall Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 Thanks @Lauren I'll see if I can find the errors in the logs and review. Regards, Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samwoo Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 Hi there, We've been getting this too. If you need to look on our instance - request ref: IN00057619 Upon first attempting to put the call off hold the system hangs after the error message appears (something to do with SMUpdateStatus). When doing a hard-refresh (CTRL + F5) we are then presented with the "Page not Displayed" error in IE11. Going back into the call again, we were then able to put the call off-hold successfully. Thanks, Samuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hall Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 Thanks @samwoo I'll take a look, I can see the relevant error in the logs, just working on being able to replicate on demand. Regards, Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hall Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 @Lauren @samwoo With regards to the above references you have mentioned, I was just looking to understand the request lifecycle and ask if: 1. Was the Service Level updated (either manually or by auto SLM rule updates) prior to the hold/take off-hold action? 2. Had the request been placed on hold until a specific time or just indefinitely using sub-statuses 3. Is it possible at all that the related BPM process calls the Mark Response/Fix node around this point e.g. based on a status change? Whilst I can see exactly where it is failing I'm currently unable to replicate locally and haven't as yet been able to understand under what scenario this situation arises so any information you can give would be appreciated while I continue to investigate. Kind Regards, Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Posted February 26, 2019 Author Share Posted February 26, 2019 Hi @David Hall As requested: 1. The Service Level was updated on SR00070018, but not IN00069963. 2. Both requests had been placed on hold until a specific time - one later that day on 25th, the other 26th 3. There are two business processes here - one for service requests and one for incidents. In one, the response time had already been marked (SR00070018). The response time for IN00069963 had not yet been marked. Thanks Lauren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hall Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 Thanks for getting that for me @Lauren I'll continue to investigate and let you know as soon as I have an update. Kind Regards, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samwoo Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 Hi @David Hall, In response to your message from one of our analysts: 1. This ticket has been taken off hold when a mail was sent by the user. 2. Placed on hold until a specific time. 3. (From me) Nothing has been changed in our BPM processes for a while now, but we do not have any nodes that check for any status changes whilst the request is open. 4. This is not the only call this has happened to for me and it only happens when I am taking a call off hold back to in progress Hope this helps somewhat. THanks, Samuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Graham Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 @David HallHi David, Just wanted to note that a couple of my guys are getting this to, also seems to be affecting jobs automatically coming off hold. IN00051191, IN00051266, IN00051147, SR00050341. All are ones that had this issue. Seems to of been happening since applying Build: 1439. Only seems to happen in the job once for us and hitting refresh seems to make it work again. Thanks, Logan G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hall Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 Thanks @samwoo @Logan Graham I'll be reviewing this with the team today in order to try to pin point the issue. Regards, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hall Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 @Lauren @samwoo @Logan Graham We've reviewed this issue further but still are unable to confirm the exact set of circumstances that lead to the error. As a result for the next update due out in the next week (build 1448 or greater), we've added some handling for the issue which we expect to resolve the error and accompanied this with additional logging to help with any further diagnosis should the need arise. If you continue to see issues after this next update please let us know back here so we can follow up. Kind Regards, Dave. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Graham Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 @David HallThanks for looking into this and shall do! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Posted February 28, 2019 Author Share Posted February 28, 2019 Hi @David Hall We've had another re-occurrence of this today - IN00072155. Thanks Lauren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Posted March 1, 2019 Author Share Posted March 1, 2019 Hi @David Hall We've got another one - SR00070887. Is there any update with this at all? Apologies, I'm being chased by management. Thanks Lauren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hall Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 Apologies again for the problems @Lauren, As per my previous post, we've made some changes which we believe will correct the issue and failing that will provide us with some additional logging information to work with. The changes and additional logging are in place for the the next full update which excluding any unforeseen issues should be available for you to install on Monday. Once you have the update in place we can look to see if the issue still persists and if so we will review it with the additional logging as a priority. If you have any questions please let me know. Regards, Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samwoo Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 Hi @David Hall, We are still having this issue: For call reference: IN00058046 Thanks, Samuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Posted March 7, 2019 Author Share Posted March 7, 2019 Hi @David Hall As are we - whilst I cannot locate any recently logged incidents that display this error, we cannot take off-hold the requests that have previously been affected by this. We currently have approx. 30 that remain on-hold that we cannot take off-hold. Lauren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hall Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 Hi @Lauren Thanks for the update, I believe our support team are assisting you with correcting these existing requests now. @samwoo If you have specific requests to correct then @Victor has kindly said he'll assist further. Regards, Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 @samwoo - raise a support request please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire Holtham Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Hi @David Hall you said there would be a fix included in 1448 build and above, but there is nothing specific in the release notes for 1451, 1452 or 1453. I'm hesitating to update our Service Manager instance (not wanting to get these errors). Can you advise if we press the update button now whether we're in for a world of pain please? Thank you! Claire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauren Posted March 13, 2019 Author Share Posted March 13, 2019 Hi @Claire Holtham The last request to encounter this issue was on 4th March for us - later that day we installed 1451. Since we've updated we've not had any further occurrences of this. Lauren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hall Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Hi @Claire Holtham, Also thanks @Lauren for your update. The fix was available in the 1452 build, apologies it appears to have been missed off from the release notes as I added them manually this time due to some issues with our automated posting, I'll correct that. To the best of my knowledge the originally reported issue has been fixed and should not present a problem. Kind Regards, Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire Holtham Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 thanks very much @Lauren t and @David Hallhat's really helpful! 1 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