[rt-users] which Perl version should one use with RT 4.4 on CentOS 6

[Boris Epstein]

Hello all,

I am about to upgrade my RT 4.2 to v4.4 on a CentOS 6 machine. It appears
that Perl 5.1 is barely adequate. What is the recommended version of Perl
for this setup?

Thanks.

Cheers,

Boris.
-
RT 4.4 and RTIR Training Sessions https://bestpractical.com/training
* Washington DC - May 23 & 24, 2016

[rt-users] Order of multiple transactions in request

[Marcos Orallo]

Hi all,

I would like to know what determines the order of creation when a request
is translated into more than one transaction, and if this can be customized
somehow.

My use case: I want to add a tag [Resolved] to the subject of the resolving
comment *and only that*.

>From what I've seen, the Comment transaction always happens before the
Status change. Thus, the only way for any On Comment Notify X scrip to be
aware of the status change is to run it in Batch stage. But this eliminates
the possibility of identifying and modifying the recipients of the comment
while composing it, which is not acceptable for us.

Do you know any alternative way to achieve the same behaviour?

Our RT version is currently 4.2.11.

Thanks!

Marcos.
-
RT 4.4 and RTIR Training Sessions https://bestpractical.com/training
* Washington DC - May 23 & 24, 2016

Re: [rt-users] Order of multiple transactions in request

[Matt Zagrabelny]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Matt Zagrabelny  wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Marcos Orallo  wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I would like to know what determines the order of creation when a request is
>> translated into more than one transaction, and if this can be customized
>> somehow.
>>
>> My use case: I want to add a tag [Resolved] to the subject of the resolving
>> comment *and only that*.
>>
>> From what I've seen, the Comment transaction always happens before the
>> Status change. Thus, the only way for any On Comment Notify X scrip to be
>> aware of the status change is to run it in Batch stage. But this eliminates
>> the possibility of identifying and modifying the recipients of the comment
>> while composing it, which is not acceptable for us.
>>
>> Do you know any alternative way to achieve the same behaviour?
>
> The limitation of TxnBatch not updating the list of email recipients
> should be fixed in 4.4.
>
> We have an extension that BP wrote for us that I could share with you
> if upgrading isn't feasible.

...or you could download it yourself. ;)

https://metacpan.org/pod/RT::Extension::AjaxPreviewScrips

-m
-
RT 4.4 and RTIR Training Sessions https://bestpractical.com/training
* Washington DC - May 23 & 24, 2016

Re: [rt-users] Order of multiple transactions in request

[Matt Zagrabelny]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Marcos Orallo  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to know what determines the order of creation when a request is
> translated into more than one transaction, and if this can be customized
> somehow.
>
> My use case: I want to add a tag [Resolved] to the subject of the resolving
> comment *and only that*.
>
> From what I've seen, the Comment transaction always happens before the
> Status change. Thus, the only way for any On Comment Notify X scrip to be
> aware of the status change is to run it in Batch stage. But this eliminates
> the possibility of identifying and modifying the recipients of the comment
> while composing it, which is not acceptable for us.
>
> Do you know any alternative way to achieve the same behaviour?

The limitation of TxnBatch not updating the list of email recipients
should be fixed in 4.4.

We have an extension that BP wrote for us that I could share with you
if upgrading isn't feasible.

-m
-
RT 4.4 and RTIR Training Sessions https://bestpractical.com/training
* Washington DC - May 23 & 24, 2016

Re: [rt-users] Order of multiple transactions in request

[Matt Zagrabelny]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Marcos Orallo  wrote:

>> https://metacpan.org/pod/RT::Extension::AjaxPreviewScrips
>
> I understand this was integrated into 4.4 core?

@BPS,

Can you confirm the merge of AjaxPreviewScrips in 4.4?

-m
-
RT 4.4 and RTIR Training Sessions https://bestpractical.com/training
* Washington DC - May 23 & 24, 2016

Re: [rt-users] Order of multiple transactions in request

[Marcos Orallo]

Thanks Matt!

El 14/3/2016 7:10 p. m., "Matt Zagrabelny"  escribió:
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Matt Zagrabelny 
wrote:l
> >
> > The limitation of TxnBatch not updating the list of email recipients
> > should be fixed in 4.4.

Updating was in our short term plans. I'm glad to know this limitation was
removed.

Any other undesirable effects of using batch?

> >
> > We have an extension that BP wrote for us that I could share with you
> > if upgrading isn't feasible.
>
> ...or you could download it yourself. ;)
>
> https://metacpan.org/pod/RT::Extension::AjaxPreviewScrips

I understand this was integrated into 4.4 core?

Marcos
-
RT 4.4 and RTIR Training Sessions https://bestpractical.com/training
* Washington DC - May 23 & 24, 2016

[rt-users] ExternalAuth and differences between WEB and Email interface RT 4.2

[Flynn, Timothy]

I'm running into a bit of a snag with ExternalAuth and the Email gateway.  I 
have AutoCreateNonExternalUsers set to 0 as I don't want to create accounts for 
non validated emails.  I am trying to send RT tickets via email to RT where the 
from email is a local account in RT.  The address is valid on that machine but 
RT tries to validate the user via LDAP which is fine.  RT states it cannot 
create the user but the user already exists as a local RT user so it should not 
need to be created.  In the web interface I can login with that user and it 
works fine.  Why doesn't the email interface fail back to local accounts in the 
same way?  I've been looking for a setting to allow this without opening the 
floodgates for all non LDAP verified emails.  I just want the local accounts to 
be allowed.



Timothy Flynn
Senior Applications Developer
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics
200 Hawkins Dr BT1000GH
Iowa City, IA 52242-1052
Phone: 319-384-9077




Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the 
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is confidential and 
may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are 
hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of 
this communication is strictly prohibited.  Please reply to the sender that you 
have received the message in error, then delete it.  Thank you.

-
RT 4.4 and RTIR Training Sessions https://bestpractical.com/training
* Washington DC - May 23 & 24, 2016

Re: [rt-users] Attachments don't reach database for one user

[Dustin Graves]

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 5:09 PM, Chanel Wheeler  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
Hi Chanel,

> I have one user that has used RT for a while with no problems. Recently, her 
> attachments to web tickets ceased coming through. I’ve watched her add  
> attachments and they appear to upload successfully but there’s no trace of 
> them in the Attachments table. We tried multiple browsers and the same thing 
> happened on each. I logged in as her on my computer and still the problem 
> happened. Another person logged in to RT on her computer and successfully 
> attached items. So it’s something to do with her account. I’ve taken a look 
> at her user record in the db and I don’t see anything amiss.
> 
> Any ideas on what I might try?
> 
> We’re running RT 4.4 and use LDAP for authentication.

I would start by checking the rights for these two users and how they might be 
different.

Can the faulty user see the missing attachment’s associated 
comment/correspondence? If the user cannot, that is why the attachment is 
missing. A user needs the ShowTicketComments right to see attachments added as 
part of a comment.

If this is not the problem, then I can investigate further.

> Thanks!
> chanel
Thank you,
Dustin


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-
RT 4.4 and RTIR Training Sessions https://bestpractical.com/training
* Washington DC - May 23 & 24, 2016

[rt-users] Should RT4 (4.4.0) display time sums under "the basics"?

[Gordon Messmer]

We recently upgraded to RT 4.4.0.  When our staff add time worked to a 
ticket, two labels appear under "The Basics," "Worked" and "Users"


After the "Worked" label, there is a sum of all the time entries. After 
the "Users" label, a user is listed with a time value that appears to be 
just the first time entry they've added.


So, for example, if Bob adds 15 minutes worked and then later adds 
another 5, the "Worked" label will read "20 minutes" and the "Users" 
label will read "bob: 15 minutes"


Is that the expected behavior?  I didn't pay attention to these fields 
in the past, but our staff are reporting that these aren't working as 
expected.


-
RT 4.4 and RTIR Training Sessions https://bestpractical.com/training
* Washington DC - May 23 & 24, 2016

[rt-users] RT with Office 365 Outlook

[Donny Brooks]

We recently migrated from in house Postfix to hosted Office365 
Outlook/exchange. I have been trying to figure out how to get RT to work with 
this setup but the only way I can see to do this is to "burn" a license or 4. 
With each one costing us around $20/month I would rather not do this. Has 
anyone successfully gotten RT to work with O365 without multiple email 
accounts? I was wondering if it could be done with "shared mailboxes" since I 
found the following instructions on accessing a shared mailbox via IMAP:
 
 
Exchange Configuration:
  USER EMAIL: u...@maindomain.com
  PASSWORD: password

  SHARED MAILBOX: sha...@anotherdomain.com      (could also be @domain.com, of 
course)
  SHARED MAILBOX ALIAS: shared-mailbox
  Note: Please make sure to create the UNIQUE alias always with the mailbox, 
because it creates the user [alias]@maindomain.com. In this case 
shared-mail...@maindomain.com
 
Settings for IMAP Configuration:
  EMAIL ADDRESS: sha...@anotherdomain.com (shared mailbox)
  IMAP SERVER: outlook.office365.com
  SMTP SERVER: smtp.office365.com
  USERNAME: u...@maindomain.com\shared-mailbox  (user\shared mailbox alias)
  PASSWORD: password (user's password)
SMTP LOGIN IS DIFFERENT (!)
  USERNAME: u...@maindomain.com  (users email)
  PASSWORD: password (user's password) 
 
It has been a long time since I have delved into the bowels of RT. It has been 
that rock solid for us. So any and all help is much appreciated.
 
Donny B.  
-
RT 4.4 and RTIR Training Sessions https://bestpractical.com/training
* Washington DC - May 23 & 24, 2016

Re: [rt-users] Unique custom fields for assets

[Kyle Dippery]

Kenny,

I haven't looked at RT 4.4 yet, so perhaps it's built in there, but it 
wasn't in RT 4.2.


What you will need to do, if it isn't there already, is create your own 
extension to the Asset.pm module, call it Asset_Local.pm, and add code 
there to check for uniqueness and auto-populate the field. The Create {} 
subroutine is the one you'll most likely want to override.


One gotcha that I remember (I did this about a year ago) is that I 
needed to know the number of the custom field; I couldn't figure out how 
to search the $args{} array for the field by name.  That being our most 
critical custom field, though, it made sense to create it first so it 
would be "CustomField-1".


I'm reluctant to post my actual code, because it's crappy and I don't 
want to release bad code into the wild, but if you'd like to see it I 
can sanitize it some and share it.


Cheers,
Kyle

On 03/11/2016 11:38 AM, Seever, Kenny wrote:


Hello,

I am working on evaluating using the Assets module in RT to manage our 
equipment, but haven’t been able to figure out if there is a way to 
make a field unique.  All of our equipment has a 5 digit asset number 
(2) that is unique.  I need to be able to add a field that makes 
sure that each number is only used once.  Ideally it would auto 
populate with the next number when a new asset is added, but that may 
be asking for too much.  Is there build in functionality for any of 
this that I’ve missed in the documentation?


Thanks in advance,

Kenny



--
Kyle Dippery
Engineering Computing Services
219 RMB
859-257-1346

-
RT 4.4 and RTIR Training Sessions https://bestpractical.com/training
* Washington DC - May 23 & 24, 2016