Jump to content

Martyn Houghton

Hornbill Users
  • Content count

    1,067
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Martyn Houghton last won the day on September 28

Martyn Houghton had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

134 Excellent

3 Followers

About Martyn Houghton

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Theale

Recent Profile Visitors

1,241 profile views
  1. Filter on Request List does not search External Reference

    @ArmandoDM Thanks for moving this forward. Cheers Martyn
  2. When loading bulk contacts you can specify the logon_id, but you cannot specify a contact's password or indicate if their guest portal account should be created and whether it should be Approved or Suspended. https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php/SQL_Contact_Import Can the tool be extended to include these facilities, so it will make migrating customers from previous systems more seamless. Cheers Martyn
  3. Issue with adding organization when importing contacts

    @mojahidm If you change the value you pass in the 'Company' field to the Organization_ID value, does it then link to the contact to the correct Organisation record? Cheers Martyn
  4. Organisation - Service Subscription View/Add

    There has been some movement on this on the recent SM builds, in that you can now view a 'Contacts' or 'Coworkers' service subscriptions. You cannot update them, but you can at least visualise them at this level, but not at Organisation or Department/Team levels. @Bob Dickinson is there anything in the pipeline to allow management of subscription from this angle. Cheers Martyn
  5. Import Organisations

    @MikaP I did not think this is currently possible and is normally done by Hornbill as part of the Switch On Service. It is something we will need to do soon ourselves, as we are looking to add additional service desks onto our single instance. Hopefully, this is something that can be added like the Request Loader utility.Cheers Martyn
  6. Date SLA will breach column

    @SJEaton The 'Resolve By' column (not to be confused with the 'Resolved By' ) column should display the target resolution date and time if a Resolution SLA has been set and started on the request. The 'SLT' column will also give you the visual indication as well. Cheers Martyn
  7. New Status does not clear Sub Statuses

    @Ehsan Phew! I was getting worried there. Cheers Martyn
  8. New Status does not clear Sub Statuses

    @Ehsan Will this only affect cases raised between SM version 1073 and 1074, or will it affect all my active incidents present in the system when 1073 was applied? Cheers Martyn
  9. New Status does not clear Sub Statuses

    @Ehsan I have applied update 1074, but I am unable to restart the workflows on the affected request. The announcement only mentions the variable picker, have I got to edit my workflow as well? Cheers Martyn
  10. New Status does not clear Sub Statuses

    @Victor Thanks. Martyn
  11. New Status does not clear Sub Statuses

    @Victor Is the issue only to do with going between a request with a sub status to a state such as New or Resolved without a sub status? Wondering whether I need to stop my analyst 's from completing the resolution stage on their requests as all the workflows are breaking. Are you fairly confident it will be released tomorrow? Cheers Martyn
  12. New Status does not clear Sub Statuses

    @Victor, @David Hall Following application of SM 1073 we are now getting errors on when changing from Open with a sub status to either New or Resolved where there is no sub status. I wondering if this could be related to this change? Cheers Martyn Error extract from another occurrence. 2017-10-17 11:34:43Z [DEBUG]:[SYSTEM]:[7936] XMLMC Request Failed: FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_bpm/updateReqStatus): nodeName: API Call: Update Request Sub-status; nodeId: ee6f8f41-bd6f-4671-b5aa-35a5854a30f5; At 708/1: "Uncaught EspMethodCall:invoke: Operation[apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/Requests:smUpdateSubstatus] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_ops/smUpdateSubstatus): Input parameter validation error: Non-digit characters found in the element <substatusId>, the expected data type is 'integer'. The value was [New] at location '/methodCall/params/substatusId'" throw(e); _fc_node_exec_ee6f8f41_bd6f_4671_b5aa_35a5854a30f5 2017-10-17 11:34:43Z [DEBUG]:[SYSTEM]:[7936] Output message schema validation failed in operation apps:updateReqStatus: The element <state> was not expected at location '/methodCallResult/state' 2017-10-17 11:34:43Z [ERROR]:[COMMS]:[7936] Operation[apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/Requests/bpmOperation:updateReqStatus] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_bpm/updateReqStatus): nodeName: API Call: Update Request Sub-status; nodeId: ee6f8f41-bd6f-4671-b5aa-35a5854a30f5; At 708/1: "Uncaught EspMethodCall:invoke: Operation[apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/Requests:smUpdateSubstatus] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_ops/smUpdateSubstatus): Input parameter validation error: Non-digit characters found in the element <substatusId>, the expected data type is 'integer'. The value was [New] at location '/methodCall/params/substatusId'" throw(e); _fc_node_exec_ee6f8f41_bd6f_4671_b5aa_35a5854a30f5 2017-10-17 11:34:43Z [ERROR]:[COMMS]:[7936] Operation[apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/Requests/bpmOperation:updateReqStatus] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_bpm/updateReqStatus): nodeName: API Call: Update Request Sub-status; nodeId: ee6f8f41-bd6f-4671-b5aa-35a5854a30f5; At 708/1: "Uncaught EspMethodCall:invoke: Operation[apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/Requests:smUpdateSubstatus] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_ops/smUpdateSubstatus): Input parameter validation error: Non-digit characters found in the element <substatusId>, the expected data type is 'integer'. The value was [New] at location '/methodCall/params/substatusId'" throw(e); _fc_node_exec_ee6f8f41_bd6f_4671_b5aa_35a5854a30f5 2017-10-17 11:34:43Z [DEBUG]:[GENERAL]:[7936] The BPM State is [{"id":"BPM20171017000039","application":"com.hornbill.servicemanager","name":"idox","currentStage":"4a2e5015-4bf4-bc96-b090-1a35b65c323b","currentNode":"flowcode-96651129-f109-4356-b8ef-f2d72b59f102","suspended":false,"cancelled":false,"failureMessage":"Xmlmc method invocation failed for BPM invocation node '4a2e5015-4bf4-bc96-b090-1a35b65c323b/flowcode-96651129-f109-4356-b8ef-f2d72b59f102': <?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\" ?>\r\n<methodCallResult status=\"fail\">\r\n\t<state>\r\n\t\t<code>0200</code>\r\n\t\t<service>apps</service>\r\n\t\t<operation>updateReqStatus</operation>\r\n\t\t<error>FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_bpm/updateReqStatus): nodeName: API Call: Update Request Sub-status; nodeId: ee6f8f41-bd6f-4671-b5aa-35a5854a30f5; At 708/1: &quot;Uncaught EspMethodCall:invoke: Operation[apps/com.hornbill.servicemanager/Requests:smUpdateSubstatus] FlowCode Exception (com.hornbill.servicemanager/entities/Requests/fc_ops/smUpdateSubstatus): Input parameter validation error: Non-digit characters found in the element &lt;substatusId&gt;, the expected data type is &apos;integer&apos;. The value was [New] at location &apos;/methodCall/params/substatusId&apos;&quot;\n\tthrow(e);\n_fc_node_exec_ee6f8f41_bd6f_4671_b5aa_35a5854a30f5</error>\r\n\t</state>\r\n</methodCallResult>\r\n","stages":{"4a2e5015-4bf4-bc96-b090-1a35b65c323b":{"number":1,"displayName":"Resolution","status":"failed","items":{"4be938f6-40f3-3ba7-f102-473e8cc59c4c":{"displayName":"Investigation Started","required":true,"state":true,"position":0},"871c9a1b-39e5-3afe-3b6d-d3e310c567eb":{"displayName":"Investigation Complete","required":true,"state":false,"position":1}}},"585d6fbe-21a1-8429-7be9-b722f46e52bd":{"number":2,"displayName":"Resolved","status":"notStarted","items":{"40614cc3-3cd6-7c7d-e753-ce2875a71ec2":{"displayName":"Customer confirmed Resolution","required":true,"state":false,"position":0},"5bc734b5-ab4d-4137-f508-05c2856bf1b1":{"displayName":"Request Closed","required":true,"state":false,"position":2},"7b3c8060-66bc-3507-254c-449559dbdc1a":{"displayName":"Request Resolved","required":true,"state":false,"position":1}}},"s1":{"number":0,"displayName":"Response","status":"completed","items":{"2f742e5a-b28f-c68e-8dec-7408e3ac8822":{"displayName":"Request Confirmation","required":false,"state":true,"position":2},"6573ee34-1e92-f346-8d77-7811b5c34c93":{"displayName":"Request Acknowledgement","required":true,"state":true,"position":0},"cfd073bf-0e50-bc96-12d3-db88ebc7c49c":{"displayName":"Request Validation","required":false,"state":true,"position":1}}}},"TASKS":{"4a2e5015-4bf4-bc96-b090-1a35b65c323b":{"task-77df8e4c-0da2-4ec2-e71c-0bb2f211ac85":{"type":"task","threshold":100,"tasks":[{"assignee":"beverley.hatchman","weight":100,"grouping":"b6c566f1-5971-4c83-af80-d2b78f66bc71","assignmentOption":"oneMustApprove","request":{"result":{"@status":true,"params":{"taskId":"TSK20171017000327"}}},"response":{"result":{"@status":true,"params":{"status":"complete","title":"Pending - IDXIN00047490 - Enquiry","details":"Investigate the issue IDXIN00047490 - Is there a limit on number of records in a DTF file that can be bulk imported into gazetteer?","options":{"timeSpent":"true"},"priority":"normal","appointment":"false","reference":"bpmTask","createdOn":"2017-10-17 10:30:21Z","createdBy":"SYS_BPM_MANAGER","startDate":"2017-10-17 10:20:31Z","dueDate":"2017-12-15 13:30:19Z","timeSpent":"0","timeBillable":"false","progress":"100","assignedTo":"urn:sys:user:beverley.hatchman","owner":"idoxsd","outcomes":"OnHold,Reassign,Resolved,LogWithDev,Log3rdTier,Log3rdParty,Pending","outcomeInfo":[{"outcome":"OnHold","displayName":{"text":"On Hold -Awaiting Customer Response","language":"en-gb"},"buttonColor":"warning","requiresReason":"false"},{"outcome":"Reassign","displayName":{"text":"Reassign to 1st Tier","language":"en-GB"},"buttonColor":"default","requiresReason":"false"},{"outcome":"Resolved","displayName":{"text":"Incident [TRUNCATED]
  13. Lock Record when being updated

    @Mohamed Yes it would have been before SM 1073 was applied. Cheers Martyn
  14. Lock Record when being updated

    @Ehsan Thinking about this more, I think it is the action of putting the request on hold causes the data loss as you cannot email when a request is on hold. Cheers Martyn
  15. Lock Record when being updated

    @Ehsan Just had another occurrence now, where I as typing an email on a case and my colleague sent an email, completed a BPM activity and the BPM put the call on hold, triggering the email I was typing on the request to be lost, the request screen updated losing the update and then displayed the blue warning update text. I am wondering if the process of preserving the action only works for certain actions or number of them? Cheers Martyn
×