Connections on requests

[Adrian Simpkins]

Hi All

So I have a number of business processes where we either connect the Customers Manager (impacted), or we connect the Customers manager (interested) and an impacted connection (owner of a mailbox, or a distribution list).

The issue I am having is that I want to send an email to each type of connection in certain scenarios, so I have setup the interested connection as custom field M, and stipulate in the send email to connection node to send this to the Interested party. Then I have a second connection which is custom field H for the impacted party - however, when I try to send 1 email to the interested party, and another to the impacted party it appears that the system is ignoring the second party setup and either only sends one email to the interested party, or it sends both emails to the interested party.

Am I correct in my assumption that within the email request connection node the field that allows me to choose which type of connection I want to email should pick this up and send it either to the interested party, or both the interested connection and the impacted connection?

FYI I have one decision node where I would only email the impacted connection but it just doesn't send any email at all (this decision branch does not connect the interested party, only the impacted party but the script appears to jump the node and send no email?

Many thanks

[Martyn Houghton]

@Adrian Simpkins

Can you post a extract of the BPM to show the logic. I presume the custom fields are used to purely to trigger whether the email connections nodes should be triggered and do not contain email addresses?

We have a similar need to involve connections in the email notification, hence why we raised an enhancement to be able to send a single email to the customer and connections in one go.

Cheers

Martyn

 

[Adrian Simpkins]

Hi Martyn

Copy of part of the flow as below (same issue occurs on each decision node). The highlighted request is for a new shared mailbox, and it should either email the customers manager for information (interested connections), or email the new mailbox owner (impacted connection). 1st decision always adds the manager as connection, then the next decision decides if an email to the manager is required, or an email to the impacted new owner.  Just retested this to be sure and if I select I require a new shared mailbox, and I am the owner it is sending the Advise manager of new shared mailbox email correctly. Then when I run another test it is connecting both connections correctly as interested / impacted then it sends the email that should go to the impacted connection to the interested connection (second / third images)

Thanks !

impacted  

[Martyn Houghton]

@Adrian Simpkins

I will see if I can replicate the issue with the Email Connections node on our instance.

Might we worth just adding a couple of timeline update nodes in the decision path you are expecting it to take, just as a double check the logic is applying as you expect.

Cheers

Martyn

[Adrian Simpkins]

Hi Martyn

Thanks, I will make a copy and insert timeline updates to check each path and recheck that the logic is doing what I hope I set it for !

[Martyn Houghton]

@Adrian Simpkins

There does seem to be something not quite right with the Email Connections node. When selecting 'Impacted' it send to all connections whether impacted or not. Example test below should only send to the Impacted one, but send to both.

Cheers

Martyn

[Adrian Simpkins]

Hi Martyn

Good to know I am not going mad ! I will raise this to the Get Support as an issue for fixing

Many thanks !

[Martyn Houghton]

@Adrian Simpkins

Just tested the opposite and email interested connections, also emails both, so it looks like an issue with the node and not your workflow logic.

Let us know when you get an Problem reference  from Hornbill for this one as in the near future we will be using the same node.

Cheers

Martyn

 

[Adrian Simpkins]

Hi Martyn

I will keep you posted on the outcome

Thanks

[ArmandoDM]

Hi @Adrian Simpkins, @Martyn Houghton

apologies for the inconvenience. The issue has been addressed, and  the fix will be available with the next major Service Manager build.

Regards

Armando

[Martyn Houghton]

@ArmandoDM

Thanks for the update. 

Cheers

Martyn

[Adrian Simpkins]

Hi Armando

Thanks for confirming, I have removed the connection nodes until this is resolved  

Many thanks !