That's what I've decided to do. The workflow will be bouncing around like
a pinball, though, as scrips and templates change fields and queues. I'm
also thinking about fooling around with TransactionBatch to see if it might
help in this instance. I'm using RT 3.6.3.
Thanks,
Gene
At 04:36 PM 4/5/2007, Kenneth Crocker wrote:
Gene,
We had trouble with some code in a template and found out we were
trying to do too much with one return process (ie. trying to get more
than 1 piece of information). We use RT 3.4.5. What we did was break up
the code (in the template) to gather and return 1 piece of info at a time
in a top down design and it worked. Maybe it will for you as well.
Kenn
LBNL
Gene LeDuc wrote:
Hi Kenn,
At 12:35 PM 4/4/2007, you wrote:
Why don't you put some code in the IP E_mail template to grab
the transaction value?
I do check for the IP value in the e-mail, but that only determines which
version of the message gets sent (either kill the port or call me to
discuss the issue). So a missing IP value is legal, as is an existing IP
value. The "State" value is used to move tickets between queues,
determine which e-mail to send in each queue, and what the ticket status
should be at various points in the life of the ticket.
What should be happening is this:
1. RT user logs in, puts a value into IP, changes State from "Info" to
"Kill", then clicks "Save Changes"
1a. RT changes IP and State fields
2. State-change to "Kill" triggers scrip that moves ticket into TNS queue
3. Queue-change from "DMCA" to "TNS" with "State" set to "Kill" triggers
scrip that sends a request to kill the port associated with the IP.
What is actually happening is this:
1. RT user logs in, puts a value into IP, changes State from "Info" to
"Kill", then clicks "Save Changes"
1a. RT changes State field (but not IP field)
2. State-change to "Kill" triggers scrip that moves ticket into TNS queue
3. Queue-change from "DMCA" to "TNS" with "State" set to "Kill" triggers
scrip that sends a request to call me to discuss the issue (since there's
no IP field at this point)
3a. RT changes IP field
So the user changes 2 fields in step 1 and hits "Save Changes", but the
State field triggers steps 2 and 3 before the IP field (which step 3
needs) is changed.
I tried putting the template to sleep for 5 seconds before grabbing the
IP value for the e-mail, in the hope that the IP field would have been
changed by the time it wakes up. But nooooo. It appears that the entire
execution chain (2 scrips and a template) that is triggered by the State
change has to complete before RT tries setting the IP field.
What I'd like to do is coax RT into consistently making the IP change
before the State change triggers the scrip, then it would work.
Gene LeDuc wrote:
Hi All,
I saw a post with a similar issue a while ago, but the solutions
offered don't fit my situation.
I have 2 custom fields, IP and State. IP is a single value text field
and State is a single value combo box.
I'm modifying both values using the Basics tab of the Ticket screen.
I set IP to some value and State to some value via the pulldown menu,
then click "Save Changes".
My expectation is that both values would be modified before any scrips
are triggered.
However... It appears that RT modifies State first, which fires a
custom-condition "State Change" scrip. IP then gets modified only
after the scrip fires, so it is not available to a template used by the
"State Change" scrip. The problem is that I need the IP in order to
send out an e-mail that makes sense.
The History display shows the State being changed, then the actions of
the "State Change" scrip (a queue change and the e-mail), then the IP
value being set.
Is there a way I can hold off on the "State Change" scrip until after
both values have been changed in the Basics screen?
It's not a "scrip execution order" issue, because there's only 1 scrip
involved. The issue is that I need all of the updates from the web
page to happen before any scrips are triggered.
I can work around this if I make the changes in 2 steps (change IP then
change State), but I'm sure my users won't see the logic in doing this.
I thought about adding a condition to the "State Change" scrip that
makes sure that IP is not null. That would keep the e-mail from going
out with a null IP, but then the scrip condition would not be satisfied
when the IP value does finally gets modified.
Has anyone else conquered this issue? Or am I missing something pretty
basic?
Thanks,
Gene
--
Gene LeDuc, GSEC
Security Analyst
San Diego State University
--
Gene LeDuc, GSEC
Security Analyst
San Diego State University
_______________________________________________
http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
Commercial support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
