Root Admin
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Gerry last won the day on March 9

Gerry had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

86 Excellent


About Gerry

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 03/19/1966

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

784 profile views
  1. @PSG We have not made any progress with this request so far, its not in our 90 day window as of this time. Gerry
  2. @PSG I will have to find out about that, my first reaction is no it would not, the task would have information about who completed it, so you could see from the task, but tasks are a platform feature so do not in themselves write back to the Service Manager call records in much the same way as completing an outlook task would not write notes into anything else. I can see why you are asking that question though and in the context of requests such an audit makes sense. I am not sure how the connection between a task and a request is made, I will have to find out and get someone to post back with an answer. Gerry
  3. HI Lee, On the request details, at the top of the timeline you should see a [+] Follow link, click that and you are done Gerry
  4. @DeadMeatGF WebHooks now support both basic and digest authentication, this should be available on live within the next 14 days, probably earlier. Gerry
  5. @Martyn Houghton Yes they are, the portal would be the highest priority though because it has the potential to impact much larger audiences. The main user app is a different proposition because its a lot more complicated to cater for some of these requirements without removing functionality. I expect what we would do is aim for compliance in the portal and a long running theme of compliance in the main app. Gerry
  6. @DeadMeatGF Ok I will organise for us to add Basic and Digest authentication support to web hooks. However this is going to depend on a new "KeySafe" feature we have added for managing credentials securely, so this will not be available for a couple of weeks. If you find out more about what you are doing (or able to do) please let us know. Gerry
  7. @DeadMeatGF OK, that makes sense. So the problem would be, the format of the XML content emanating out of our system in the web-hook payload will not match what your orchestration needs, how would you solve that? (sorry, I dont know MS Orchestrator). We could add basic authentication to WebHooks I would have thought, as we are just introducing our own keychain solution for securely holding credentials for exactly that sort of thing. Gerry
  8. Steve, Which orchistrator are you talking about, Microsoft Orchistrator? HP OO? something else? As Trev mentioned above, Integration is a current theme and we have some interesting stuff in the works, can we find out a bit more about what you are trying to achieve. As for the question around basic authentication, the web hooks dont support that, typically you would use HTTPS and you would provide some kind of API key as an argument on the URL, but that does very much depend on the target system you are firing web-hook originated events at. The typical scenario would be to fire the even at some "glue" code running on one of your servers and then do whatever you need from within there. Gerry
  9. Hi Martyn, This has also come up for us in G-Cloud 9. As it currently stands we do not benchmark against this standards so although we follow best practice guidelines when it comes to UI design we could not claim any kind of compliance today. Like you guys, we also have a large number of public sector clients and so this does come up as an issue so we need to look into it further and see what needs to be done from our point of view. Its on our radar but I don't currently have any timeframe or committed plan of action to communicate. Gerry
  10. Hi @Henrik Brattlie, Manag-E Thank for the suggestion, this has come up before and its something we want to look at, the team will investigate options and post back here once we know more. Gerry
  11. Hi @Ronny Silooy, Thanks for the suggestion, I am not sure how practical that would be to implement, its difficult to manage once you have multiple places to pin stuff to. The icons at the top-right appear there because there is "unread" stuff, the idea being you can have fast access to the stuff that you need to action. The problem with pinning to this area is relating to responsive design issues, we always need to be mindful of the screen real estate we are taking up with new features. We will continue to evolve this, our aim is always to keep things fresh and improve usability based on customer/user feedback. Gerry
  12. @Dan Munns Yes thats correct, the API scheduler is an example of how to schedule ad-hoc things and the power of Hornbills API, as was suggested as a work-around while we do not have this function implemented. Gerry
  13. Hello @Dan Munns No change as yet I am afraid, its still on the list and we will get to to it. Just so we are on the same page here, I am talking about the scheduling of "Task" (or Activity) creation, not requests. [edit] just had a look at the other backlog items, we should be able to get this done in the next 3-4 weeks, I will post with an update when its on the cutting room floor. Gerry
  14. Hi Samuel, Yes please find out more, I think if a document has been shared with you via a library with the edit permission it should work. In terms of document ownership and leavers, that is exactly right, the idea behind the design concept was to ensure that your leaver process should include the need for someone to go through the documents they are responsible for and either re-assign ownership or remove from the system before they leave - again designed to help you stop the burden of documents rotting. This has come up before and not everyone likes the system to be so ridged but in truth its good for businesses as most are plagued with documents and other file content that no one is responsible for, its a massive hidden costs that most businesses don't even recognise as a problem, they just throw more disk space at it and let the IT guys worry about it. Gerry
  15. Hi Samuel, On the first point, we specifically designed document manager to "encourage" ownership and responsibility for documents to prevent the document rot that you typically see on a corporate network drive. By ensuring that every document has an owner then you can ensure that there is someone responsible for the document, to review it, to ask questions about it etc...making it possible to assign ownership to a group would go against that design goal. On the second point, you can add a document to a library and that library can be shared with individuals or groups alike, I would suggest the best route forward would be to use libraries to logically group your documents, and then share the libraries with the users/groups you need to. Does that work for you? Gerry