RT 3.6.4 - Threading of comments in a ticket's history?

Hello, I am currently testing Request Tracker in the hopes that it will
be the Issue Tracker system that the small company I work for will
settle with, to deal with support requests and then other uses as they
would arise.

During working on one support ticket, I came across a minor issue: At
the moment I am storing emails from the client as Comments in the
ticket, and I had generated a fair number of History items for the
ticket I was working on. I found that the client had send a second email
clarifying her original support request, straight after the original
email had been sent - however as I wasn’t aware of this email at the
time, it hadn’t been added to the ticket straight after the opening
comment of her original email. I then used the Comment link of the
opening comment in order to indicate that the original email has been
superseded with this new email; entered the email in then submitted the
Comment. Unfortunately this comment was the appended to the end of the
History list for the current ticket - this wasn’t what I was after.

I wanted the comment I added to be displayed under the original comment
to indicate that it was a ‘reply’ to the original comment - otherwise
someone having a quick overview of the ticket might not realise that the
client had sent a second email clarifying her first.

Basically I’m after a threaded view of the relationship between the
ticket comments (as used in Newsgroups), when I use the specialised
Comment links rather than the overall ticket Comment link. Is this
something that’s in RT’s settings, or is it outside the current spec of
RT? Unfortunately I’m just a user of the system and don’t have the
knowledge to program RT itself, but I can talk to the RT administrator
if any required code changes are easy enough.

Thanks for any help.

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

Note: This is a second attempt to send this email after delivery failure
without a reason given for the first attempt.

Hello, I am currently testing Request Tracker in the hopes that it will
be the Issue Tracker system that the small company I work for will
settle with, to deal with support requests and then other uses as they
would arise.

During working on one support ticket, I came across a minor issue: At
the moment I am storing emails from the client as Comments in the
ticket, and I had generated a fair number of History items for the
ticket I was working on. I found that the client had send a second email
clarifying her original support request, straight after the original
email had been sent - however as I wasn’t aware of this email at the
time, it hadn’t been added to the ticket straight after the opening
comment of her original email. I then used the Comment link of the
opening comment in order to indicate that the original email has been
superseded with this new email; entered the email in then submitted the
Comment. Unfortunately this comment was the appended to the end of the
History list for the current ticket - this wasn’t what I was after.

I wanted the comment I added to be displayed under the original comment
to indicate that it was a ‘reply’ to the original comment - otherwise
someone having a quick overview of the ticket might not realise that the
client had sent a second email clarifying her first.

Basically I’m after a threaded view of the relationship between the
ticket comments (as used in Newsgroups), when I use the specialised
Comment links rather than the overall ticket Comment link. Is this
something that’s in RT’s settings, or is it outside the current spec of
RT? Unfortunately I’m just a user of the system and don’t have the
knowledge to program RT itself, but I can talk to the RT administrator
if any required code changes are easy enough.

Thanks for any help.

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

Philip,

I received your email yesterday, so the failure notice you got didn't 

stop your email from getting to the user’s group.
I’m not sure what advantage you get from altering the way RT stores
it’s replies. Both are part of ticket history and both have separate
rights control of what a user can see in that history (you can set it so
a user can see neither, either, or both). You can also alter the
chronology from ascending to descending. I suppose it’s my lack of
understanding of how your method is supposed to be better than the
built-in abilities that RT has that keeps me from being able to help you
accurately. So, let me ask; what is the supposed advantage of storing an
email as a comment as opposed to leaving it be? Why does the requestor
sending a second, clarifying email upset the apple cart? With those
answers, I might be able to steer you in an acceptable direction.

Kenn
LBNLOn 3/20/2008 5:53 AM, Philip Haworth wrote:

Note: This is a second attempt to send this email after delivery failure
without a reason given for the first attempt.

Hello, I am currently testing Request Tracker in the hopes that it will
be the Issue Tracker system that the small company I work for will
settle with, to deal with support requests and then other uses as they
would arise.

During working on one support ticket, I came across a minor issue: At
the moment I am storing emails from the client as Comments in the
ticket, and I had generated a fair number of History items for the
ticket I was working on. I found that the client had send a second email
clarifying her original support request, straight after the original
email had been sent - however as I wasn’t aware of this email at the
time, it hadn’t been added to the ticket straight after the opening
comment of her original email. I then used the Comment link of the
opening comment in order to indicate that the original email has been
superseded with this new email; entered the email in then submitted the
Comment. Unfortunately this comment was the appended to the end of the
History list for the current ticket - this wasn’t what I was after.

I wanted the comment I added to be displayed under the original comment
to indicate that it was a ‘reply’ to the original comment - otherwise
someone having a quick overview of the ticket might not realise that the
client had sent a second email clarifying her first.

Basically I’m after a threaded view of the relationship between the
ticket comments (as used in Newsgroups), when I use the specialised
Comment links rather than the overall ticket Comment link. Is this
something that’s in RT’s settings, or is it outside the current spec of
RT? Unfortunately I’m just a user of the system and don’t have the
knowledge to program RT itself, but I can talk to the RT administrator
if any required code changes are easy enough.

Thanks for any help.


This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.



The rt-users Archives

Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
Commercial support: sales@bestpractical.com

Discover RT’s hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O’Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com

I have installed Dirk Pape’s fork patch and just fork a new ticket in
this instance. I then resolve the original and everything is still
preserved.

Philip Haworth wrote:

Thanks for the reply Drew, I have read up the thread I think you are
refering to
(Carbon60: Cloud Consulting - Services and Solutions
%20Pape%20fork;#16448), however this is not the issue.

My request for a threaded History view is just a visual display of
information - the ticket itself is still valid, it does not need forking
at all, there are no separate issues to deal with. This is just an issue
of visually associating a child comment in a ticket (that has been
created by clicking the ‘comment’ link of a parent comment) with the
parent comment.

Philip Haworth
Support Developer
Scout Solutions Software Ltd
01905 361 500
philiphaworth@scoutsolutions.co.uk
scoutclientsupport@scoutsolutions.co.uk

This E-mail and any attachments to it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the addressee. It and they may contain information
which is covered by legal, professional, or other privilege. If you are
not the intended addressee, you must not disclose, forward, copy or take
any action in reliance on this E-mail or its attachments. If you have
received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender at Scout
Solutions on 01905 361 500 as soon as possible and delete this e-mail
immediately and destroy any hard copies of it.
Neither Scout Solutions nor the sender accepts any responsibility for
any virus that may be carried by this e-mail and it is the recipient’s
responsibility to scan the e-mail and any attachments before opening
them.

If this e-mail is a personal communication, the views expressed in it
and in any attachments are personal, and unless otherwise explicitly
stated do not represent the views of Scout Solutions.

Scout Solutions Software Limited is registered in England and Wales
number 4667857 and its registered office is Whittington Hall,
Whittington Road, Worcester WR5 2ZXFrom: Drew Barnes [mailto:barnesaw@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu]
Sent: 20 March 2008 17:21
To: Philip Haworth
Cc: rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com
Subject: Re: [rt-users] RT 3.6.4 - Threading of comments in a ticket’s
history?

I have installed Dirk Pape’s fork patch and just fork a new ticket in
this instance. I then resolve the original and everything is still
preserved.

Philip Haworth wrote:

Note: This is a second attempt to send this email after delivery
failure without a reason given for the first attempt.

Hello, I am currently testing Request Tracker in the hopes that it
will be the Issue Tracker system that the small company I work for
will settle with, to deal with support requests and then other uses as

they would arise.

During working on one support ticket, I came across a minor issue: At
the moment I am storing emails from the client as Comments in the
ticket, and I had generated a fair number of History items for the
ticket I was working on. I found that the client had send a second
email clarifying her original support request, straight after the
original email had been sent - however as I wasn’t aware of this email

at the time, it hadn’t been added to the ticket straight after the
opening comment of her original email. I then used the Comment link of

the opening comment in order to indicate that the original email has
been superseded with this new email; entered the email in then
submitted the Comment. Unfortunately this comment was the appended to
the end of the History list for the current ticket - this wasn’t what
I was after.

I wanted the comment I added to be displayed under the original
comment to indicate that it was a ‘reply’ to the original comment -
otherwise someone having a quick overview of the ticket might not
realise that the client had sent a second email clarifying her first.

Basically I’m after a threaded view of the relationship between the
ticket comments (as used in Newsgroups), when I use the specialised
Comment links rather than the overall ticket Comment link. Is this
something that’s in RT’s settings, or is it outside the current spec
of RT? Unfortunately I’m just a user of the system and don’t have the
knowledge to program RT itself, but I can talk to the RT administrator

if any required code changes are easy enough.

Thanks for any help.


This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.


The rt-users Archives

Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support:
sales@bestpractical.com

Discover RT’s hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O’Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

I originally sent this email to Kenneth without realising he CC’d his
email to this mailing list, so I am sending this email to the list now:

Firstly, sorry for the delay in replying - last Friday was good Friday,
then the weekend, and this Monday being another bank holiday has lead to
a long delay in getting back to work.

FYI the failure email I got contained:

'This is the mail system at host diesel.bestpractical.com.

I’m sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered
to one or more recipients. It’s attached below.

For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your
own text from the attached returned message.

The mail system

rt-users@diesel.bestpractical.com (expanded from

rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com): mail forwarding loop for

rt-users@diesel.bestpractical.com

I remember getting an email saying my email had been successfully
received by the list; but then this one came later so I got a bit
confused.

The issue here isn’t how I store the email content - as this is a test
installation of RT, I am currently dealing with emails through the
traditional support inbox, and then copying their contents over to
comments in tickets that I create in RT as part of this test.
Autocreation of tickets via emailing RT has already been successfully
tested, but this will only be brought into action fully when the
decision is made to move support email address to RT, so for now I’ll
still be using comments.

The issue is merely how comments (and presumably replies) are displayed
to the user in the ticket’s history. If I create a ‘reply’ to a comment
(note: this is not a reply in RT parlance, i.e. a reply email to the
ticket; but creation of a comment by clicking a particular comment’s
‘comment’ link), I expect History to have a view that visually
associates this comment ‘reply’ with the original comment. I have
attached a gif illustration of what I mean
.

Philip Haworth
Support Developer
Scout Solutions Software Ltd
01905 361 500
philiphaworth@scoutsolutions.co.uk
mailto:philiphaworth@scoutsolutions.co.uk
scoutclientsupport@scoutsolutions.co.uk
mailto:scoutclientsupport@scoutsolutions.co.uk

This E-mail and any attachments to it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the addressee. It and they may contain information
which is covered by legal, professional, or other privilege. If you are
not the intended addressee, you must not disclose, forward, copy or take
any action in reliance on this E-mail or its attachments. If you have
received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender at Scout
Solutions on 01905 361 500 as soon as possible and delete this e-mail
immediately and destroy any hard copies of it.
Neither Scout Solutions nor the sender accepts any responsibility for
any virus that may be carried by this e-mail and it is the recipient’s
responsibility to scan the e-mail and any attachments before opening
them.

If this e-mail is a personal communication, the views expressed in it
and in any attachments are personal, and unless otherwise explicitly
stated do not represent the views of Scout Solutions.

Scout Solutions Software Limited is registered in England and Wales
number 4667857 and its registered office is Whittington Hall,
Whittington Road, Worcester WR5 2ZX-----Original Message-----

From: Kenneth Crocker [mailto:KFCrocker@lbl.gov
mailto:KFCrocker@lbl.gov ]

Sent: 20 March 2008 17:01

To: Philip Haworth

Cc: rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com

Subject: Re: [rt-users] RT 3.6.4 - Threading of comments in a ticket’s
history?

Philip,

I received your email yesterday, so the failure notice you got didn’t
stop your email from getting to the user’s group.

I’m not sure what advantage you get from altering the way RT stores it’s
replies. Both are part of ticket history and both have separate rights
control of what a user can see in that history (you can set it so a user
can see neither, either, or both). You can also alter the chronology
from ascending to descending. I suppose it’s my lack of understanding of
how your method is supposed to be better than the built-in abilities
that RT has that keeps me from being able to help you accurately. So,
let me ask; what is the supposed advantage of storing an email as a
comment as opposed to leaving it be? Why does the requestor sending a
second, clarifying email upset the apple cart? With those answers, I
might be able to steer you in an acceptable direction.

Kenn

LBNL

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

Re-reading your original, I think I see where our minds got crossed. I
originally read it as a client clarifying her original request in an
email into your RT box, after you had already commented.

Upon re-reading, it now seems that she is emailing you and you are
copy/pasting her emails into the ticket history. As a result, my fork
solution will not work since you are putting her comments into the history.

Is there a reason you are not corresponding directly through RT? This
is where, if a clarification comes in and it changes the ticket in such
a way that your previous comments no longer make sense, you could fork
it to a new one and disregard the older comments that no longer apply.

Philip Haworth wrote:

Thanks for the fork suggestion, I’m sure something like this will happen
in the future, so its good to be aware about it.

As I have said in an earlier reply to Kenneth (I think), I am using
Comments to store client emails because I am manually c&ping (copy and
pasting) from our support inbox into RT in order to test how RT copes
with our current support procedure. Actually emailing RT itself has
already been successully tested by myself, and the support email address
will point to the RT installation when we are ready to officially move
to RT.

This visual representation issue isn’t just a quirk of my particular
incorrect usage of RT; because there are special Comment and Reply links
for individual Comments and Replies History items, it would definitely
be useful to have a threaded view at some point. My main reason for
posting was to find out if there was such a feature, and there isn’t, so
mission accomplished for me. I’m sure we’ll be moving to RT regardless
soon.

Philip Haworth
Support Developer
Scout Solutions Software Ltd
01905 361 500
philiphaworth@scoutsolutions.co.uk
scoutclientsupport@scoutsolutions.co.uk

This E-mail and any attachments to it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the addressee. It and they may contain information
which is covered by legal, professional, or other privilege. If you are
not the intended addressee, you must not disclose, forward, copy or take
any action in reliance on this E-mail or its attachments. If you have
received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender at Scout
Solutions on 01905 361 500 as soon as possible and delete this e-mail
immediately and destroy any hard copies of it.
Neither Scout Solutions nor the sender accepts any responsibility for
any virus that may be carried by this e-mail and it is the recipient’s
responsibility to scan the e-mail and any attachments before opening
them.

If this e-mail is a personal communication, the views expressed in it
and in any attachments are personal, and unless otherwise explicitly
stated do not represent the views of Scout Solutions.

Scout Solutions Software Limited is registered in England and Wales
number 4667857 and its registered office is Whittington Hall,
Whittington Road, Worcester WR5 2ZXFrom: Drew Barnes [mailto:barnesaw@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu]
Sent: 25 March 2008 15:49
To: Philip Haworth
Cc: rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com
Subject: Re: [rt-users] RT 3.6.4 - Threading of comments in a ticket’s
history?

Re-reading your original, I think I see where our minds got crossed. I
originally read it as a client clarifying her original request in an
email into your RT box, after you had already commented.

Upon re-reading, it now seems that she is emailing you and you are
copy/pasting her emails into the ticket history. As a result, my fork
solution will not work since you are putting her comments into the
history.

Is there a reason you are not corresponding directly through RT? This
is where, if a clarification comes in and it changes the ticket in such
a way that your previous comments no longer make sense, you could fork
it to a new one and disregard the older comments that no longer apply.

Philip Haworth wrote:

Thanks for the reply Drew, I have read up the thread I think you are
refering to
(Carbon60: Cloud Consulting - Services and Solutions
rk %20Pape%20fork;#16448), however this is not the issue.

My request for a threaded History view is just a visual display of
information - the ticket itself is still valid, it does not need
forking at all, there are no separate issues to deal with. This is
just an issue of visually associating a child comment in a ticket
(that has been created by clicking the ‘comment’ link of a parent
comment) with the parent comment.

Philip Haworth
Support Developer
Scout Solutions Software Ltd
01905 361 500
philiphaworth@scoutsolutions.co.uk
scoutclientsupport@scoutsolutions.co.uk

This E-mail and any attachments to it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the addressee. It and they may contain information

which is covered by legal, professional, or other privilege. If you
are not the intended addressee, you must not disclose, forward, copy
or take any action in reliance on this E-mail or its attachments. If
you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender at
Scout Solutions on 01905 361 500 as soon as possible and delete this
e-mail immediately and destroy any hard copies of it.
Neither Scout Solutions nor the sender accepts any responsibility for
any virus that may be carried by this e-mail and it is the recipient’s

responsibility to scan the e-mail and any attachments before opening
them.

If this e-mail is a personal communication, the views expressed in it
and in any attachments are personal, and unless otherwise explicitly
stated do not represent the views of Scout Solutions.

Scout Solutions Software Limited is registered in England and Wales
number 4667857 and its registered office is Whittington Hall,
Whittington Road, Worcester WR5 2ZX

-----Original Message-----
From: Drew Barnes [mailto:barnesaw@ucrwcu.rwc.uc.edu]
Sent: 20 March 2008 17:21
To: Philip Haworth
Cc: rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com
Subject: Re: [rt-users] RT 3.6.4 - Threading of comments in a ticket’s

history?

I have installed Dirk Pape’s fork patch and just fork a new ticket in
this instance. I then resolve the original and everything is still
preserved.

Philip Haworth wrote:

Note: This is a second attempt to send this email after delivery
failure without a reason given for the first attempt.

Hello, I am currently testing Request Tracker in the hopes that it
will be the Issue Tracker system that the small company I work for
will settle with, to deal with support requests and then other uses
as

they would arise.

During working on one support ticket, I came across a minor issue: At

the moment I am storing emails from the client as Comments in the
ticket, and I had generated a fair number of History items for the
ticket I was working on. I found that the client had send a second
email clarifying her original support request, straight after the
original email had been sent - however as I wasn’t aware of this
email

at the time, it hadn’t been added to the ticket straight after the
opening comment of her original email. I then used the Comment link
of

the opening comment in order to indicate that the original email has
been superseded with this new email; entered the email in then
submitted the Comment. Unfortunately this comment was the appended to

the end of the History list for the current ticket - this wasn’t what

I was after.

I wanted the comment I added to be displayed under the original
comment to indicate that it was a ‘reply’ to the original comment -
otherwise someone having a quick overview of the ticket might not
realise that the client had sent a second email clarifying her first.

Basically I’m after a threaded view of the relationship between the
ticket comments (as used in Newsgroups), when I use the specialised
Comment links rather than the overall ticket Comment link. Is this
something that’s in RT’s settings, or is it outside the current spec
of RT? Unfortunately I’m just a user of the system and don’t have the

knowledge to program RT itself, but I can talk to the RT
administrator

if any required code changes are easy enough.

Thanks for any help.


This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.


The rt-users Archives

Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support:
sales@bestpractical.com

Discover RT’s hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O’Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com


This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.


This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

K, thanks for your reply. I was mainly interested in finding out if the
feature exists; I doubt our RT admin would want to code it himself
anyway :wink: I’m sure we will be moving our support to RT soon regardless.

Philip Haworth
Support Developer
Scout Solutions Software Ltd
01905 361 500
philiphaworth@scoutsolutions.co.uk
scoutclientsupport@scoutsolutions.co.uk

This E-mail and any attachments to it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the addressee. It and they may contain information
which is covered by legal, professional, or other privilege. If you are
not the intended addressee, you must not disclose, forward, copy or take
any action in reliance on this E-mail or its attachments. If you have
received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender at Scout
Solutions on 01905 361 500 as soon as possible and delete this e-mail
immediately and destroy any hard copies of it.
Neither Scout Solutions nor the sender accepts any responsibility for
any virus that may be carried by this e-mail and it is the recipient’s
responsibility to scan the e-mail and any attachments before opening
them.

If this e-mail is a personal communication, the views expressed in it
and in any attachments are personal, and unless otherwise explicitly
stated do not represent the views of Scout Solutions.

Scout Solutions Software Limited is registered in England and Wales
number 4667857 and its registered office is Whittington Hall,
Whittington Road, Worcester WR5 2ZXFrom: Kenneth Crocker [mailto:KFCrocker@lbl.gov]
Sent: 25 March 2008 16:54
To: Philip Haworth
Subject: Re: [rt-users] RT 3.6.4 - Threading of comments in a ticket’s
history?

Philip,

I think I understand now what you were asking. The stuff about

the requestor sending in an adeendum threw me off. It seems the question
is simply “can RT be configured to insert replies to comments next to
the comment being replied on, instead of by chronological order?”. If I
am correct in understanding your question, my answer is “I’ve never
heard or seen it”. My understanding of history is that they are
attachments records that can be displayed in ascending or descending
order only. To get around that, you would probably have to get “into” RT
and add another option and code the way that option should work. IT
seems a bit messy, but possibly doable. I just tell my clients it’s a
built in limitation and leave it at that. They don’t seem to mind as RT
has so many other terrific features. Sorry I couldn’t help.

Kenn
LBNL

Firstly, sorry for the delay in replying - last Friday was good
Friday, then the weekend, and this Monday being another bank holiday
has lead to a long delay in getting back to work.

FYI the failure email I got contained:

'This is the mail system at host diesel.bestpractical.com.

I’m sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be
delivered to one or more recipients. It’s attached below.

For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your
own text from the attached returned message.

               The mail system

rt-users@diesel.bestpractical.com (expanded from
rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com): mail forwarding loop for
rt-users@diesel.bestpractical.com

I remember getting an email saying my email had been successfully
received by the list; but then this one came later so I got a bit
confused.

The issue here isn’t how I store the email content - as this is a test

installation of RT, I am currently dealing with emails through the
traditional support inbox, and then copying their contents over to
comments in tickets that I create in RT as part of this test.
Autocreation of tickets via emailing RT has already been successfully
tested, but this will only be brought into action fully when the
decision is made to move support email address to RT, so for now I’ll
still be using comments.

The issue is merely how comments (and presumably replies) are
displayed to the user in the ticket’s history. If I create a ‘reply’
to a comment
(note: this is not a reply in RT parlance, i.e. a reply email to the
ticket; but creation of a comment by clicking a particular comment’s
‘comment’ link), I expect History to have a view that visually
associates this comment ‘reply’ with the original comment. I have
attached a gif illustration of what I mean.

Philip Haworth
Support Developer
Scout Solutions Software Ltd
01905 361 500
philiphaworth@scoutsolutions.co.uk
scoutclientsupport@scoutsolutions.co.uk

This E-mail and any attachments to it are strictly confidential and
intended solely for the addressee. It and they may contain information

which is covered by legal, professional, or other privilege. If you
are not the intended addressee, you must not disclose, forward, copy
or take any action in reliance on this E-mail or its attachments. If
you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender at
Scout Solutions on 01905 361 500 as soon as possible and delete this
e-mail immediately and destroy any hard copies of it.
Neither Scout Solutions nor the sender accepts any responsibility for
any virus that may be carried by this e-mail and it is the recipient’s

responsibility to scan the e-mail and any attachments before opening
them.

If this e-mail is a personal communication, the views expressed in it
and in any attachments are personal, and unless otherwise explicitly
stated do not represent the views of Scout Solutions.

Scout Solutions Software Limited is registered in England and Wales
number 4667857 and its registered office is Whittington Hall,
Whittington Road, Worcester WR5 2ZX

-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Crocker [mailto:KFCrocker@lbl.gov]
Sent: 20 March 2008 17:01
To: Philip Haworth
Cc: rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com
Subject: Re: [rt-users] RT 3.6.4 - Threading of comments in a ticket’s

history?

Philip,

I received your email yesterday, so the failure notice you got
didn’t
stop your email from getting to the user’s group.
I’m not sure what advantage you get from altering the way RT
stores
it’s replies. Both are part of ticket history and both have separate
rights control of what a user can see in that history (you can set it
so a user can see neither, either, or both). You can also alter the
chronology from ascending to descending. I suppose it’s my lack of
understanding of how your method is supposed to be better than the
built-in abilities that RT has that keeps me from being able to help
you accurately. So, let me ask; what is the supposed advantage of
storing an email as a comment as opposed to leaving it be? Why does
the requestor sending a second, clarifying email upset the apple cart?

With those answers, I might be able to steer you in an acceptable
direction.

Kenn
LBNL

Note: This is a second attempt to send this email after delivery
failure without a reason given for the first attempt.

Hello, I am currently testing Request Tracker in the hopes that it
will be the Issue Tracker system that the small company I work for
will settle with, to deal with support requests and then other uses
as

they would arise.

During working on one support ticket, I came across a minor issue: At

the moment I am storing emails from the client as Comments in the
ticket, and I had generated a fair number of History items for the
ticket I was working on. I found that the client had send a second
email clarifying her original support request, straight after the
original email had been sent - however as I wasn’t aware of this
email

at the time, it hadn’t been added to the ticket straight after the
opening comment of her original email. I then used the Comment link
of

the opening comment in order to indicate that the original email has
been superseded with this new email; entered the email in then
submitted the Comment. Unfortunately this comment was the appended to

the end of the History list for the current ticket - this wasn’t what
I was after.

I wanted the comment I added to be displayed under the original
comment to indicate that it was a ‘reply’ to the original comment -
otherwise someone having a quick overview of the ticket might not
realise that the client had sent a second email clarifying her first.

Basically I’m after a threaded view of the relationship between the
ticket comments (as used in Newsgroups), when I use the specialised
Comment links rather than the overall ticket Comment link. Is this
something that’s in RT’s settings, or is it outside the current spec
of RT? Unfortunately I’m just a user of the system and don’t have the

knowledge to program RT itself, but I can talk to the RT
administrator

if any required code changes are easy enough.

Thanks for any help.


This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.



The rt-users Archives

Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com Commercial support:
sales@bestpractical.com

Discover RT’s hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O’Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com


This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.


This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.

HI RT Users,
I’m looking for a way to create something similar like the quicksearch for queues but for users in this case. I need as result an overview of all users that can own a ticket in a queues and then a list like the quicksearch with the number of tickets per user.

Has anyone done this already or can point me to the correct direction to start?

Thanks, any hint is welcome.

Torsten

Kühne + Nagel (AG & Co.) KG, Geschäftsleitung: Hans-Georg Brinkmann (Vors.), Uwe Bielang (Stellv.), Bruno Mang, Alfred Manke, Thorsten Meincke, Mark Reinhardt (Stellv.), Jens Wollesen, Rainer Wunn, Sitz: Bremen, Registergericht: Bremen, HRA 21928, USt-IdNr.: DE 812773878, Persönlich haftende Gesellschaft: Kühne & Nagel A.G., Sitz: Contern/Luxemburg Geschäftsführender Verwaltungsrat: Klaus-Michael Kühne

I didn’t see something like that. Start from query builder, it has
list of possible owners. It will help you start writing a portlet.
Then look at QuickSearch portlet to figure out how to build a report.On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Ham MI-ID, Torsten Brumm torsten.brumm@kuehne-nagel.com wrote:

HI RT Users,
I’m looking for a way to create something similar like the quicksearch for queues but for users in this case. I need as result an overview of all users that can own a ticket in a queues and then a list like the quicksearch with the number of tickets per user.

Has anyone done this already or can point me to the correct direction to start?

Thanks, any hint is welcome.

Torsten

Kühne + Nagel (AG & Co.) KG, Geschäftsleitung: Hans-Georg Brinkmann (Vors.), Uwe Bielang (Stellv.), Bruno Mang, Alfred Manke, Thorsten Meincke, Mark Reinhardt (Stellv.), Jens Wollesen, Rainer Wunn, Sitz: Bremen, Registergericht: Bremen, HRA 21928, USt-IdNr.: DE 812773878, Persönlich haftende Gesellschaft: Kühne & Nagel A.G., Sitz: Contern/Luxemburg Geschäftsführender Verwaltungsrat: Klaus-Michael Kühne


The rt-users Archives

Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
Commercial support: sales@bestpractical.com

Discover RT’s hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O’Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com

Best regards, Ruslan.

From: “Ham MI-ID, Torsten Brumm” torsten.brumm@Kuehne-Nagel.com
Subject: [rt-users] Quicksearch - But not for Queues, for Users

I’m looking for a way to create something similar like the quicksearch for
queues but for users in this case. I need as result an overview of all users
that can own a ticket in a queues and then a list like the quicksearch with
the number of tickets per user.

Has anyone done this already or can point me to the correct direction to
start?

Hi Torsten,

I think I have worked out what you’re looking for. I have created two
Elements that I have in $RT_HOME/local/html/Elements

  1. QuickSearch
  2. OwnerSummary

which serve to replace and expand the Quicksearch sidebar to include ticket
owners and the number of tickets in each queue. The list of Queues is
editable and it seems to work well to keep a fairly quick view of the status
of tickets that are owned.

These Elements work for me, but I haven’t done any testing to see if they
are really bulletproof for everyone. Feel free to use and adapt as you will.
I believe the only site-specific piece in the code is that we have an extra
status of “waiting” in our RT instance.

You can get the files here:
http://elementalmarkup.com/ramblings/rt-owner-summary

_Erik

Hello,

We are running RT 3.4.5. I created one custom field and would like to add the value that is chosen to the email that is generated. Any help would be greatly appreciated. The custom field name is “Locations”

Thanks in advance,
gary
In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_realtime_042008

Hi Erik,

Sounds like what i’m looking for. Just grabbed from your link, put into test and got an error:

error: Can’t use string (“”) as a subroutine ref while “strict refs” in use at /opt/rt3/local/html/Elements/OwnerSummary line 104.
context:

100: $Queues->UnLimit();
101: @queues = map {
102: { Name => $->Name, Description => $->Description,
103: id => $->Id } }
104: grep $queue_filter->($
), @{$Queues->ItemsArrayRef};
105:
106: $session{$cache} = @queues if $cache;
107: }
108: my $Tickets = RT::Tickets->new($session{‘CurrentUser’});

code stack: /opt/rt3/local/html/Elements/OwnerSummary:104
/opt/rt3/share/html/Elements/MyRT:90
/opt/rt3/local/html/index.html:81
/opt/rt3/share/html/autohandler:291
raw error

PS: We have a waiting status too…

Any Ideas? I’m not a perl guru :wink:

Kühne + Nagel (AG & Co.) KG, Geschäftsleitung: Hans-Georg Brinkmann (Vors.), Uwe Bielang (Stellv.), Bruno Mang, Alfred Manke, Thorsten Meincke, Mark Reinhardt (Stellv.), Jens Wollesen, Rainer Wunn, Sitz: Bremen, Registergericht: Bremen, HRA 21928, USt-IdNr.: DE 812773878, Persönlich haftende Gesellschaft: Kühne & Nagel A.G., Sitz: Contern/Luxemburg Geschäftsführender Verwaltungsrat: Klaus-Michael Kühne-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Peterson, Erik [mailto:epeterson@edc.org]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. März 2008 14:13
An: Ham MI-ID, Torsten Brumm; rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com
Betreff: Re: [rt-users] Quicksearch - But not for Queues, for Users

From: “Ham MI-ID, Torsten Brumm” torsten.brumm@Kuehne-Nagel.com
Subject: [rt-users] Quicksearch - But not for Queues, for Users

I’m looking for a way to create something similar like the quicksearch
for queues but for users in this case. I need as result an overview of
all users that can own a ticket in a queues and then a list like the
quicksearch with the number of tickets per user.

Has anyone done this already or can point me to the correct direction
to start?

Hi Torsten,

I think I have worked out what you’re looking for. I have created two Elements that I have in $RT_HOME/local/html/Elements

  1. QuickSearch
  2. OwnerSummary

which serve to replace and expand the Quicksearch sidebar to include ticket owners and the number of tickets in each queue. The list of Queues is editable and it seems to work well to keep a fairly quick view of the status of tickets that are owned.

These Elements work for me, but I haven’t done any testing to see if they are really bulletproof for everyone. Feel free to use and adapt as you will.
I believe the only site-specific piece in the code is that we have an extra status of “waiting” in our RT instance.

You can get the files here:
http://elementalmarkup.com/ramblings/rt-owner-summary

_Erik

Hi Gary,

Here’s how I do it. I like using subroutines so I can reuse the code, so
this is a subroutine that I’d have at the end of my template.

Returns custom field value

get_custom($field_name)

sub get_custom {
my $target_name = $_[0];
my $val = $Ticket->FirstCustomFieldValue($target_name);
return $val if defined $val;
return undef;
}

To get your value using this subroutine you have something like this:

my $uLocations = get_custom(‘Locations’);

And then you just use $uLocations in your template wherever you want it
displayed.

Regards,
Gene

At 06:25 AM 3/27/2008, Gary & Gina Koteras wrote:

Hello,

We are running RT 3.4.5. I created one custom field and would like to
add the value that is chosen to the email that is generated. Any help
would be greatly appreciated. The custom field name is “Locations”

Thanks in advance,
gary

Gene LeDuc, GSEC
Security Analyst
San Diego State University

Hi Gene,

I saw this fly by and just couldn’t help myself trying to optimise it:On 27 Mar 2008, at 16:04, Gene LeDuc wrote:

sub get_custom {
my $target_name = $_[0];
my $val = $Ticket->FirstCustomFieldValue($target_name);
return $val if defined $val;
return undef;
}

sub get_custom {
return $val if $Ticket->FirstCustomFieldValue($_[0]);
return undef;
}

Sorry, it’s a pointless opto (just reduces numbers of lines and makes
it less readable … but that’s how we do in perl land right?) but I
had a spare 30 seconds :slight_smile:

Regards
Huw

s2s company email disclaimer : http://www.s2s.ltd.uk/datasheets/email_disclaimer.pdf
s2s company registration number : 3952958
s2s VAT registration number : GB763132055
Business premises : Ground Floor, Overline House, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1JA
Registered address : Heathcote, Kings Road, Ilkley, West Yorkshire, LS29 9AS
Place of registration : England

Hi Gene,

I saw this fly by and just couldn’t help myself trying to optimise it:

OK, I suck and actually sent the wrong opto, here is what I wanted to
say:

sub get_custom {
return $val if $Ticket->FirstCustomFieldValue($_[0]) or return
undef;
}

Again, totally pointless but makes the line count prettier :slight_smile:

Huw

s2s company email disclaimer : http://www.s2s.ltd.uk/datasheets/email_disclaimer.pdf
s2s company registration number : 3952958
s2s VAT registration number : GB763132055
Business premises : Ground Floor, Overline House, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1JA
Registered address : Heathcote, Kings Road, Ilkley, West Yorkshire, LS29 9AS
Place of registration : England

Hi Gene,

I saw this fly by and just couldn’t help myself trying to optimise
it:

OK, I suck and actually sent the wrong opto, here is what I wanted to
say:

And for those that didn’t spot the deliberate mistake cough :

sub get_custom {
return $Ticket->FirstCustomFieldValue($_[0]) or return undef;
}

I promise I will stop now!!

Huw

s2s company email disclaimer : http://www.s2s.ltd.uk/datasheets/email_disclaimer.pdf
s2s company registration number : 3952958
s2s VAT registration number : GB763132055
Business premises : Ground Floor, Overline House, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1JA
Registered address : Heathcote, Kings Road, Ilkley, West Yorkshire, LS29 9AS
Place of registration : England

At Thursday 3/27/2008 12:45 PM, Huw Selley wrote:

And for those that didn’t spot the deliberate mistake cough :

sub get_custom {
return $Ticket->FirstCustomFieldValue($_[0]) or return undef;
}

I promise I will stop now!!

Huw

Please don’t Huw, this has been very entertaining :wink:

How about just

return $Ticket->FirstCustomFieldValue($_[0]);

or even no subroutine - just use $Ticket->FirstCustomFieldValue($_[0])

Steve

Now I suck!

$Ticket->FirstCustomFieldValue($field_name);

Steve