Re-opening a resolved ticket?


#1

Today, I resolved an open item. Normally, I reply to the ticket with the
solution, and mark it resolved at the same time.

The requestor replied to the resolution (which doesn’t seem to me to be an
unnatural reaction). RT added the reply, and reopened the request. Adding
the reply is ok. I’d expect that. But re-opening a request shouldn’t happen
from an incoming email. Then a ticket gets closed a second time, with
another “this ticket is now resolved” message to the requestor. Then they
reply asking why the ticket got closed twice… Do you see where I’m going?
(loop loop).

Russ Johnson
Stargate Online

telnet://telnet.dimstar.net
http://www.dimstar.net
ICQ: 3739685:Airneil


#2

Seems like the correct action to me. In your replies, include a line such
as “Replying to this email will re-open this ticket. Please reply if you
have any more problems.”. It makes more sense to include a line like that
if you’re auto-replying, and use the word “ticket” in the auto-reply,
otherwise they’ll be scratching their heads “ticket… huh??”.

What we don’t need is customers responding to a resolved ticket with “IT’S
STILL NOT WORKING!” and our support crew missing it because of the ticket
status.

-robOn Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Russ Johnson wrote:

Today, I resolved an open item. Normally, I reply to the ticket with the
solution, and mark it resolved at the same time.

The requestor replied to the resolution (which doesn’t seem to me to be an
unnatural reaction). RT added the reply, and reopened the request. Adding
the reply is ok. I’d expect that. But re-opening a request shouldn’t happen
from an incoming email. Then a ticket gets closed a second time, with
another “this ticket is now resolved” message to the requestor. Then they
reply asking why the ticket got closed twice… Do you see where I’m going?
(loop loop).

Russ Johnson
Stargate Online

telnet://telnet.dimstar.net
http://www.dimstar.net
ICQ: 3739685:Airneil


rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users


#3

This is as designed. However, it will be possible to configure this in RT
2.2 or so. (The framework is there in 2.0. we’re just not exposing it yet.)On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 11:21:22PM -0800, Russ Johnson wrote:

Today, I resolved an open item. Normally, I reply to the ticket with the
solution, and mark it resolved at the same time.

The requestor replied to the resolution (which doesn’t seem to me to be an
unnatural reaction). RT added the reply, and reopened the request. Adding
the reply is ok. I’d expect that. But re-opening a request shouldn’t happen
from an incoming email. Then a ticket gets closed a second time, with
another “this ticket is now resolved” message to the requestor. Then they
reply asking why the ticket got closed twice… Do you see where I’m going?
(loop loop).

Russ Johnson
Stargate Online

telnet://telnet.dimstar.net
http://www.dimstar.net
ICQ: 3739685:Airneil


rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

jesse reed vincent – root@eruditorum.orgjesse@fsck.com
70EBAC90: 2A07 FC22 7DB4 42C1 9D71 0108 41A3 3FB3 70EB AC90

A REAL sysadmin challenge is “resurrect five dead mailserver while so ripped
to the gills on mdma that you can’t focus on any given line of text for more
than 10 seconds continuously.”
-Nathan Mehl


#4

I would think that if “correct” behavior was to not re-open a resolved
ticket, then a reply to a closed ticket could be made to open a new one.

Of course, this has it’s own drawbacks.

At 03:09 AM 12/13/2000 -0600, Robert Boyd wrote:

Seems like the correct action to me. In your replies, include a line such
as “Replying to this email will re-open this ticket. Please reply if you
have any more problems.”. It makes more sense to include a line like that
if you’re auto-replying, and use the word “ticket” in the auto-reply,
otherwise they’ll be scratching their heads “ticket… huh??”.

What we don’t need is customers responding to a resolved ticket with “IT’S
STILL NOT WORKING!” and our support crew missing it because of the ticket
status.

-rob

Today, I resolved an open item. Normally, I reply to the ticket with the
solution, and mark it resolved at the same time.

The requestor replied to the resolution (which doesn’t seem to me to be an
unnatural reaction). RT added the reply, and reopened the request. Adding
the reply is ok. I’d expect that. But re-opening a request shouldn’t
happen
from an incoming email. Then a ticket gets closed a second time, with
another “this ticket is now resolved” message to the requestor. Then they
reply asking why the ticket got closed twice… Do you see where I’m
going?
(loop loop).

Russ Johnson
Stargate Online

telnet://telnet.dimstar.net
http://www.dimstar.net
ICQ: 3739685:Airneil


rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

Russ Johnson
Stargate Online

telnet://telnet.dimstar.net
http://www.dimstar.net
ICQ: 3739685:Airneil


#5

That sounds reasonable. Choose one set of advantages/disadvantages or
another.

If “new mail reopens resolved tickets” (or whatever the current behavior
might be called under an optional scheme) is set, then there are the
problems Robert Boyd mentions, which require re-resolving those tickets
(probably via the web or command line interfaces, silently, without
generating yet-another message to the chatty user that said user might use
to continue the resolve-reopen loop).

If “new mail reopens resolved tickets” is not set, and a new ticket is
opened on receipt of a response to a resolved ticket, then if necessary
the new ticket can be manually merged back into the resolved ticket and
the ticket re-opened.

Of course, if this new ticket is some content-free response like “OK”, it
is still going to need manual attention much like the first scenario.

–JoeOn Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Russ Johnson wrote:

I would think that if “correct” behavior was to not re-open a resolved
ticket, then a reply to a closed ticket could be made to open a new one.

Of course, this has it’s own drawbacks.

At 03:09 AM 12/13/2000 -0600, Robert Boyd wrote:

Seems like the correct action to me. In your replies, include a line such
as “Replying to this email will re-open this ticket. Please reply if you
have any more problems.”. It makes more sense to include a line like that
if you’re auto-replying, and use the word “ticket” in the auto-reply,
otherwise they’ll be scratching their heads “ticket… huh??”.

What we don’t need is customers responding to a resolved ticket with “IT’S
STILL NOT WORKING!” and our support crew missing it because of the ticket
status.

-rob

On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Russ Johnson wrote:

Today, I resolved an open item. Normally, I reply to the ticket with the
solution, and mark it resolved at the same time.

The requestor replied to the resolution (which doesn’t seem to me to be an
unnatural reaction). RT added the reply, and reopened the request. Adding
the reply is ok. I’d expect that. But re-opening a request shouldn’t
happen
from an incoming email. Then a ticket gets closed a second time, with
another “this ticket is now resolved” message to the requestor. Then they
reply asking why the ticket got closed twice… Do you see where I’m
going?
(loop loop).

Russ Johnson
Stargate Online

telnet://telnet.dimstar.net
http://www.dimstar.net
ICQ: 3739685:Airneil


rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

Russ Johnson
Stargate Online

telnet://telnet.dimstar.net
http://www.dimstar.net
ICQ: 3739685:Airneil


rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists…fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

D. Joe Anderson, Ph.D Computing Support for Botany, ZG, & BBMB.
botsupport@iastate.edu | zgsupport@iastate.edu | bbsupport@iastate.edu
1210 MBB, ISU, Ames, IA 5001 http://molebio.iastate.edu/support
bcbsupport@iastate.eduhttp://www.bcb.iastate.edu/bcblab