Re: [rt-users] To NotifyActor or not to NotifyActor ...
Yeah, my bad.
On Correspond Auto-take by AdminCc
Action:
## based on http://wiki.bestpractical.com/view/AutoSetOwnerIfAdminCc
my $Actor = $self-TransactionObj-Creator;
my $Queue = $self-TicketObj-QueueObj;
return 1 if $Actor == $RT::SystemUser-id;
return 1 unless $self-TicketObj-Owner == $RT::Nobody-id;
return 1 unless $Queue-IsWatcher(Type = 'AdminCc', PrincipalId = $Actor);
my($status, $msg) = $self-TicketObj-SetOwner( $Actor );
unless( $status ) {
$RT::Logger-warning( Can't set ticket owner to $Actor: $msg );
return undef;
}
return 1;
--
Cambridge Energy Alliance: Save money. Save the planet.
Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] To NotifyActor or not to NotifyActor ...
Jerrad,
Thanks a lot. I actually ended up using the AutoSetOwner that was
linked on the page you posted. But in any event, it worked perfectly !
-Original Message-
From: Jerrad Pierce [mailto:jpie...@cambridgeenergyalliance.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 8:05 AM
To: Blake Turner
Cc: rt-users
Subject: Re: [rt-users] To NotifyActor or not to NotifyActor ...
Yeah, my bad.
On Correspond Auto-take by AdminCc
Action:
## based on http://wiki.bestpractical.com/view/AutoSetOwnerIfAdminCc
my $Actor = $self-TransactionObj-Creator;
my $Queue = $self-TicketObj-QueueObj;
return 1 if $Actor == $RT::SystemUser-id;
return 1 unless $self-TicketObj-Owner == $RT::Nobody-id;
return 1 unless $Queue-IsWatcher(Type = 'AdminCc', PrincipalId = $Actor);
my($status, $msg) = $self-TicketObj-SetOwner( $Actor );
unless( $status ) {
$RT::Logger-warning( Can't set ticket owner to $Actor: $msg );
return undef;
}
return 1;
--
Cambridge Energy Alliance: Save money. Save the planet.
Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] To NotifyActor or not to NotifyActor ...
I really like this method... I have the ticket creation notifications going to a shared mailbox for all the users to see. but I cannot seem to find a sample scrip on the wiki to assign ownership of a ticket based on the email address that the reply came from. I mean I know I can set the owner of the ticket by using: Ahh, it must have been from the book then: Description: On Correspond Open Ticket Condition: On Correspond Action: Open Tickets Template: Blank #Use Transaction if you want notification Stage: TransactionCreate That should do it. -- Cambridge Energy Alliance: Save money. Save the planet. Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] To NotifyActor or not to NotifyActor ...
Ahh, it must have been from the book then:
Description: On Correspond Open Ticket
Condition: On Correspond
Action: Open Tickets
Template: Blank #Use Transaction if you want notification
Stage: TransactionCreate
That should do it.
I am even more confused than ever now. That scrip is there by default, but
checking the logs after I reply to a 'ticket creation' email, that scrip
isnt invoked at all.
When a requestor sends an email to create a ticket the first scrip that runs
is:
Description: On Create Notify ALL Users
Condition: On Create
Action: Notify Other Recipients
Template: Global Template: Notify Users
Stage: TransactionCreate
The template is just a simple message to a shared mailbox:
To: csqu...@domain.com
Subject: New Ticket: {$Ticket-Subject}
A New Ticket has been created in the Client Support Queue. If you would like
to take ownership of this ticket, reply to this email with the word take
in the body.
... so if a user replies to that email, I want to set that user as the owner
and send the {$Ticket-Transactions-First-Content} out to that user, so
they can begin working on it.
The only piece that I cannot seem to figure out is how to have the On
Correspond scrip look at the email address, and match that to a user in RT
so that I can assign them as the owner of this ticket.
Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media.
Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] To NotifyActor or not to NotifyActor ...
Blake, I'm curious. Is there some reason a person *wouldn't* know what they were getting when they take a ticket? I mean, I have to *SEE* the ticket in order to take it. If I can see it, I can look at the info. So why do I need an email to tell me I took a ticket when I'm the one that actually initiated that act? Also, what a person gets in that email is *up to you*. You can modify any template to include/exclude all sorts of info when a condition triggers it. Have you thought about having an email go *just* to the requestor when a ticket is created and one *just* to the requestor when it is taken? You could also create a *separate notification just* for the new owner if you * really* think he needs it. All with different info in the template. Just a few thoughts. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Blake Turner bl...@eos-3.com wrote: Hey all, I really wanted the content of a new ticket to be emailed to the user that takes the ticket from the queue. The only way I could figure to make this happen was to set NotifyActor to 1 in the Site_Config. But now I am running across a whole mess of stuff being set to the owner while they are working within a ticket that I would rather not have happening… replying to a requestor from the user's email account for one. I am just wondering if there is anyone to override this NotifyActor setting in a custom scrip for only this one task. Maybe something along the lines of setting a custom scrip to just ignore the fact that NotifyActor is set to 0 for this particular scrip. If it is not possible, then I guess I will have to live with the extra emails being sent back to the owner on all of their correspondence, because I really need to keep the ability to have a requestor's initial email sent to the owner's email once they take that ticket. thanks in advance for any direction or wisdom ! * * Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] To NotifyActor or not to NotifyActor ...
Ken, The reason that I Ned to owner to get an email is so that they can respond to the ticket directly from their email client, rather than via the RT web console. In regards to the template email to the owner that takes a ticket: I was unable to get that to work with out enabling the NotifyActor. I assumed because the user that is taking ownership is actually performing the action. I would definately be able to do what I need if I could get a when someone takes a ticket scrip to actually send an email template out to the new owner. Kenneth Crocker kfcroc...@lbl.gov wrote: Blake, I'm curious. Is there some reason a person *wouldn't* know what they were getting when they take a ticket? I mean, I have to *SEE* the ticket in order to take it. If I can see it, I can look at the info. So why do I need an email to tell me I took a ticket when I'm the one that actually initiated that act? Also, what a person gets in that email is *up to you*. You can modify any template to include/exclude all sorts of info when a condition triggers it. Have you thought about having an email go *just* to the requestor when a ticket is created and one *just* to the requestor when it is taken? You could also create a *separate notification just* for the new owner if you * really* think he needs it. All with different info in the template. Just a few thoughts. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Blake Turner bl...@eos-3.com wrote: Hey all, I really wanted the content of a new ticket to be emailed to the user that takes the ticket from the queue. The only way I could figure to make this happen was to set NotifyActor to 1 in the Site_Config. But now I am running across a whole mess of stuff being set to the owner while they are working within a ticket that I would rather not have happening… replying to a requestor from the user's email account for one. I am just wondering if there is anyone to override this NotifyActor setting in a custom scrip for only this one task. Maybe something along the lines of setting a custom scrip to just ignore the fact that NotifyActor is set to 0 for this particular scrip. If it is not possible, then I guess I will have to live with the extra emails being sent back to the owner on all of their correspondence, because I really need to keep the ability to have a requestor's initial email sent to the owner's email once they take that ticket. thanks in advance for any direction or wisdom ! * * Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] To NotifyActor or not to NotifyActor ...
Blake, I think the new 3.8.8 release allows for individual override on the NotifyActor in preferences. So, if you have users that wanted to be notified when they did something, they could turn that on. Since the transaction is already retained in the ticket history, most don't want the unnecessary email, but hey, that's why they make different flavors of ice-cream. Good luck. Kenn LBNL On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Blake Turner bl...@eos-3.com wrote: Ken, The reason that I Ned to owner to get an email is so that they can respond to the ticket directly from their email client, rather than via the RT web console. In regards to the template email to the owner that takes a ticket: I was unable to get that to work with out enabling the NotifyActor. I assumed because the user that is taking ownership is actually performing the action. I would definately be able to do what I need if I could get a when someone takes a ticket scrip to actually send an email template out to the new owner. Kenneth Crocker kfcroc...@lbl.gov wrote: Blake, I'm curious. Is there some reason a person *wouldn't* know what they were getting when they take a ticket? I mean, I have to *SEE* the ticket in order to take it. If I can see it, I can look at the info. So why do I need an email to tell me I took a ticket when I'm the one that actually initiated that act? Also, what a person gets in that email is *up to you*. You can modify any template to include/exclude all sorts of info when a condition triggers it. Have you thought about having an email go *just* to the requestor when a ticket is created and one *just* to the requestor when it is taken? You could also create a *separate notification just* for the new owner if you * really* think he needs it. All with different info in the template. Just a few thoughts. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Blake Turner bl...@eos-3.com wrote: Hey all, I really wanted the content of a new ticket to be emailed to the user that takes the ticket from the queue. The only way I could figure to make this happen was to set NotifyActor to 1 in the Site_Config. But now I am running across a whole mess of stuff being set to the owner while they are working within a ticket that I would rather not have happening… replying to a requestor from the user's email account for one. I am just wondering if there is anyone to override this NotifyActor setting in a custom scrip for only this one task. Maybe something along the lines of setting a custom scrip to just ignore the fact that NotifyActor is set to 0 for this particular scrip. If it is not possible, then I guess I will have to live with the extra emails being sent back to the owner on all of their correspondence, because I really need to keep the ability to have a requestor's initial email sent to the owner's email once they take that ticket. thanks in advance for any direction or wisdom ! * * Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
Re: [rt-users] To NotifyActor or not to NotifyActor ...
The reason that I Ned to owner to get an email is so that they can respond to the ticket directly from their email client, rather than via the RT web console. This just seems utterly pointless, even for an RT-phobe, the switching back and forth is unnecessary. If you really want to support this sort of thing my recommendation would be to have the users setup to receive notifications of new tickets. They can then reply, and in combination with one of the scrips on the wiki, become the owner if they are the first to act on it. Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
[rt-users] To NotifyActor or not to NotifyActor ...
Hey all, I really wanted the content of a new ticket to be emailed to the user that takes the ticket from the queue. The only way I could figure to make this happen was to set NotifyActor to 1 in the Site_Config. But now I am running across a whole mess of stuff being set to the owner while they are working within a ticket that I would rather not have happening. replying to a requestor from the user's email account for one. I am just wondering if there is anyone to override this NotifyActor setting in a custom scrip for only this one task. Maybe something along the lines of setting a custom scrip to just ignore the fact that NotifyActor is set to 0 for this particular scrip. If it is not possible, then I guess I will have to live with the extra emails being sent back to the owner on all of their correspondence, because I really need to keep the ability to have a requestor's initial email sent to the owner's email once they take that ticket. thanks in advance for any direction or wisdom ! Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media. Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
