AndyGilly Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 Hi I am struggling to figure out a way to get the BPM to assign a task to a team as part of a workflow but the resolution of that ticket to not be dependent on the completion of the task Does anyone know if this is possible? thanks Andy
Guest Ehsan Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 Hi @AndyGilly, When the setting "webapp.view.ITSM.serviceDesk.requests.resolve.denyWithOpenActivities" is enabled, a user will not be able to resolve the Request until the associated activities are completed. You can turn this setting off if you do not wish to enforce this on the team. Does that answer your question?
AndyGilly Posted April 21, 2020 Author Posted April 21, 2020 thanks @Ehsan, just to confirm, this is a system wide setting only. There is no way that each workflow/ task can be treated differently? We have some workflows where the tasks are prerequisites to the process completion & some where we wish to create the task to be completed but it is not a dependency on the customer request being fulfilled? thanks Andy
Guest Ehsan Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 @AndyGilly As an enhancement, we can extend 'Requests > Update Request > Status' Hornbill Automation to not enforce the setting when resolving a Request through a process. Would this work for you? Unfortunately I can't think of another workaround at this stage.
AndyGilly Posted April 21, 2020 Author Posted April 21, 2020 @Ehsan that would work well for us, if that was possible thanks Andy
Guest Ehsan Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 Hi @AndyGilly, I have extended 'Requests > Update Request > Status' Hornbill Automation to not enforce the setting when resolving a Request. This is currently being prepared for testing. I will update this post as soon as I can confirm when this will be made available. Ehsan
AndyGilly Posted April 22, 2020 Author Posted April 22, 2020 Thanks @Ehsan, this will allow us to automate the fulfilment of customer requests, include backend tasks in the automated workflow whilst having the request data being reflective of our delivery to the customer a real positive step thank you
James Ainsworth Posted June 4, 2020 Posted June 4, 2020 Hi Andy, I just wanted to let you know that the functionality mentioned by Ehsan was made available in the Service Manager build 1929. I hope this helps. Let us know how you get on with using this. Regards, James
AndyGilly Posted June 5, 2020 Author Posted June 5, 2020 thanks @James Ainsworth and @Ehsan , appreciated
Adam Toms Posted December 3, 2020 Posted December 3, 2020 Hi @James Ainsworth and @Ehsan I work on the same team as @AndyGilly, and we are currently early adopters of ITOM. We are automating our Visio requests, and we would like the ticket to resolve, but with the task active to our Procurement team to replenish the license that has been consumed for a pool of O365 licenses we have. We were under the impression from the update back in June 2020, that the our nodes already configured in the bpm, would auto apply this. I've attached a screenshot of what I believe to be the area that @Ehsan is referring to, we have tested today, as we are looking to go live with our first piece of automated software deployment, but the ticket would not resolve until the task had been completed by our Procurement team. Do we need to re-create the node with the same config to be able to obtain this additional setting, or is there something I'm missing that we need to configure? Thanks Adam
Adam Toms Posted December 4, 2020 Posted December 4, 2020 Hi, Just wondered if there was an update to this? Or is our only option to apply make a change to the setting below? Many Thanks Adam
James Ainsworth Posted December 4, 2020 Posted December 4, 2020 Hi Adam, You are right that this requirement had already been delivered and should be available to you without turning on the mentioned setting. On 12/3/2020 at 4:26 AM, Adam Toms said: Do we need to re-create the node with the same config to be able to obtain this additional setting, or is there something I'm missing that we need to configure? I believe that this may be the case. I have seen before where a slight modification to a Hornbill Automation has been made, but as you put it, in order to obtain this new functionality you may either need to re-create the node or possibly even just a re-save of the BPM (drag a node to a new position to enable the save button), and publish. It is most likely done this way in order to limit how an update changes existing behaviour. In some cases it may seem beneficial to have it auto-applied but most of the time it is better for the BPM designer to update and apply when they are ready to apply it. 1
Adam Toms Posted December 7, 2020 Posted December 7, 2020 Thanks @James Ainsworth I will take a look into this. Thanks again for your help.
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