Survey - Constituency Propagation

RTIR
1

I’m in the midst of some work to significantly modernize RTIR’s
constituency functionality. As part of this work, we’re revisiting the
‘Constituency Propagation’ configuration option.

Right now, there are 3 possible constituency propagation algorithms:

'no', 'inherit', and 'reject'

The current design can be somewhat…confusing to administrators, to
say nothing of what it does to poor developers who try to modify it.

I intend to remove either ‘no’ or ‘inherit’ as a constituency propagation
option for RTIR 3.4.

I suspect that nobody is using ‘inherit’ and expect that that will be
the option I remove, but I’d like to hear from a larger sample set of
RTIR users before the change happens.

If you currently use one of those two options, please drop me mail
(at jesse@bestpractical.com) to tell me which you use and just how
catastrophic it would be if the option went away.

Thanks,

Jesse

2

Hi,

As far as I recall ‘reject’ is the sane one.On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Jesse Vincent jesse@bestpractical.com wrote:

I’m in the midst of some work to significantly modernize RTIR’s
constituency functionality. As part of this work, we’re revisiting the
‘Constituency Propagation’ configuration option.

Right now, there are 3 possible constituency propagation algorithms:

    'no', 'inherit', and 'reject'

The current design can be somewhat…confusing to administrators, to
say nothing of what it does to poor developers who try to modify it.

I intend to remove either ‘no’ or ‘inherit’ as a constituency propagation
option for RTIR 3.4.

I suspect that nobody is using ‘inherit’ and expect that that will be
the option I remove, but I’d like to hear from a larger sample set of
RTIR users before the change happens.

If you currently use one of those two options, please drop me mail
(at jesse@bestpractical.com) to tell me which you use and just how
catastrophic it would be if the option went away.

Thanks,

Jesse

Best regards, Ruslan.

3

Hello,
Does anybody know if it is possible to attach tickets the way RTIR does, but using the rt cmdline client?

Similarly, is it possible to specify headers via ‘rt correspond’ ?

Thanks,
Chris

4

Den 2015-04-13 22:54, Chris Warren skrev:

Hello,
Does anybody know if it is possible to attach tickets the way RTIR
does, but using the rt cmdline client?

I’m looking for the same thing. I’d like to use rt-cli but when I look
in the script there’s no support for rtir. Is there an unofficial
implementation for rtir for this script?

Similarly, is it possible to specify headers via ‘rt correspond’ ?

Thanks,
Chris

regards,

/bengan

5

Hello,
Does anybody know if it is possible to attach tickets the way RTIR does, but using the rt cmdline client?

Yes.

$ rt link $report_id memberof $incident_id
$ rt link $investigation_id memberof $incident_id

Similarly, is it possible to specify headers via ‘rt correspond’ ?

Yes, if you mean by headers the transaction-metadata like Subject,
Requestor, Custom-Fields, …

The format is a bit byzantine, it’s best to try

$ rt comment -m “sample text” -e $ticketnum

and look at the file rt is giving you to edit.

/ol
-=- Otmar Lendl – ol@bofh.priv.at – http://lendl.priv.at/ -=-

6

Hello,
Does anybody know if it is possible to attach tickets the way RTIR does,
but using the rt cmdline client?

Yes.

$ rt link $report_id memberof $incident_id
$ rt link $investigation_id memberof $incident_id

Thanks, but I don’t think I properly explained myself. I’m actually referring to the way that RTIR does “attach reports” when corresponding in an investigation.

In the web interface, you get a list of linked incident reports that you can “attach” to the outgoing message.

I am looking for a way to do this with the rt client.