Auto-task to automatically accept a ticket

[Smurfy]

So I have been requested to find a way where on an open ticket an engineer can click a button and it auto assigns the ticket to them.
I cant seem to find a way to pick up the "actioners" "log in id" so I can transpose it to them as the owner.

Am I going about this all wrong?

 

[Jeremy]

I don't think this is possible as you would need the logged in 'session user' which you can't look up via a variable...this however would be a great option in the assignment action bar to be able to 'Assign to me'....

[James Ainsworth]

We do have a change in our backlog to add a feature to allow for a quick assignment to oneself within the Assign Action of a request.  I'll add you both to this change and I'll update this topic if there is any progress.

Regards,

James

[samwoo]

+1 can you add me too?

[Guest Paul Alexander]

+1 for for us for this too please

[Alisha]

+1 for us as well please!

[Smurfy]

On 7/30/2021 at 8:52 PM, James Ainsworth said:

We do have a change in our backlog to add a feature to allow for a quick assignment to oneself within the Assign Action of a request.  I'll add you both to this change and I'll update this topic if there is any progress.

Regards,

James

Hi @James Ainsworth I just wondered if there was any progress with this one? Its a feature that would make real difference to us.

[James Ainsworth]

It is possible to achieve this by creating and using an Auto Task button.  In your Auto Task workflow you can use the variable &[global["session"]["userId"]] to assign request to the person that clicks on the Auto Task button.  Just to mention that I wouldn't recommend using this variable in a regular BPM workflow as the context of the user can change and you may get incorrect assignments, but works well in an Auto Task

[Smurfy]

Thanks @James Ainsworth  I shall give it a go

 

[Smurfy]

Works perfectly. Thank you 

[James Ainsworth]

That's great @Smurfy!  Thanks for letting us know.

[Sam P]

@Smurfy would it be possible for you to share the node to get this to work?  I have tried Assign to Owner (variable) with the variable @James Ainsworthshared above but getting an error...I have prefixed it with Get Request Information node but dont think thats right (I'm still quite new to this!).  Thanks

[Berto2002]

Indeed, I think we are overlooking the warning below, right since we cannot include a node that legitimises the variable "&[global["session"]["userId"]]" to be valid.

The issue we have is that it assigns to that user but selects a random Team! E.g. It was on testing team with my colleague and after pressing this button, it assigned to me in the change management queue; even though I am in the testing team... Is there another configuration I need to specify somewhere to not later the team?

I thought by selecting to IGNORE the team it would do just that:

But it's actively not ignoring the team and instead selecting a new team based on some criteria:

Andy suggestions @James Ainsworth?

[Smurfy]

Hi

I cant upload images as our firewall blocks it - I'm working on that.
In the meantime I have tried copy an paste below.

So I user one node. It was the assign to owner (variable) and then added manually &[global["session"]["userId"]] in the owner box
 

Application Service Manager

             

Scope  Entity 

                             

Entity Request

                

Type Assignment

Task Assign to Owner (variable) 

               

Result Reference

Options

 Request Id Auto

                                 

 Team   Auto     

                         

 Owner Variable Manual   &[global["session"]["userId"]]

                                 

 

 System Timeline Update Ignore 

       

 Manual Timeline Update Manual

                

 Visibility Ignore 

                 

 

Output Params / Context Reference

outcome

[Sam P]

Got it!  Thanks @Smurfy

[Victor]

3 hours ago, Berto2002 said:

selecting a new team based on some criteria

It would be the first team returned by the query which runs to retrieve the teams that your user is a member of. Which might (and likely) to be different than the order that you see the teams (your user teams) in the UI.

[Berto2002]

@Victor is there a way we can see that background query and/or alter/affect that order for each user/team?

[Victor]

@Berto2002 I’m afraid not. Sorry.

[Sam P]

@Berto2002 I had this with assigning tasks to a variable owner...it selects the team highest in the alphabet and assigns it there.  As a result of this, our team members are only in one team, which works for me in this scenario but we are missing out in others.  

[Victor]

39 minutes ago, Sam P said:

it selects the team highest in the alphabet and assigns it there

@Sam P It would be the first team returned by the query which runs to retrieve the teams that your user is a member of. Which might (and likely) to be different than the order that you see the teams (your user teams) in the UI. It might be that in your instance the query happens to return the list in alphabetical order but it might not always be the case for other instances. Just to clarify to prevent an incorrect expectation here.

[Smurfy]

Our engineers are only in one team so this works fine for us. But I can see if they weren’t this could be an issue. It’s a shame you can’t set a “default” team for uses like this scenario.

[James Ainsworth]

Hi @Smurfy

When you say "default team" is this referring to an analyst having a primary or default team set against them as an individual whey they belong to more than one team? 

[Berto2002]

@James Ainsworth yes that is exactly what I think should be the case.

But in the case of a workflow "assign to me" the node should "assign to me in the same team it is in now - but then go to my default team if I am not in the current team"

[Sam P]

14 hours ago, Victor said:

but it might not always be the case for other instances. Just to clarify to prevent an incorrect expectation here.

Understood, thanks for clarifying.

[Smurfy]

8 hours ago, James Ainsworth said:

Hi @Smurfy

When you say "default team" is this referring to an analyst having a primary or default team set against them as an individual whey they belong to more than one team? 

Yes it was my thinking but as @Berto2002 has said is maybe a better idea. We don't use multiple teams in our organisation so I'm not 100% sure how the multiple teams are used.