Just wanted to hear if anyone here has implemented checkboxes in a
custom field?
seems like this is far more intuitive for multiple select
Thoughts?
Comments?
pitfalls?
-Joel
___
http://lists.bestpractical.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
Co
Good day all!
I've set up LDAP integration on a fresh RT 3.6.6 install to authenticate
with our Windows 2003 Active Directory, as per
http://wiki.bestpractical.com/view/LDAP. It seems to be working quite
nicely (including authentication and user record field population), with one
exception: enabl
Good day all!
I've set up LDAP integration on a fresh RT 3.6.6 install to authenticate
with our Windows 2003 Active Directory, as per
http://wiki.bestpractical.com/view/LDAP. It seems to be working quite
nicely (including authentication and user record field population), with one
exception: enabl
Good day all!
I've set up LDAP integration on a fresh RT 3.6.6 install to authenticate
with our Windows 2003 Active Directory, as per
http://wiki.bestpractical.com/view/LDAP. It seems to be working quite
nicely (including authentication and user record field population), with one
exception: enabl
Good day all!
I've set up LDAP integration on a fresh RT 3.6.6 install to authenticate
with our Windows 2003 Active Directory, as per
http://wiki.bestpractical.com/view/LDAP. It seems to be working quite
nicely (including authentication and user record field population), with one
exception: enabl
Joe,
You know, I do have a few Custom Fields that serve the same purpose,
but would have different values per queue. I didn't know we had
sub-categories that worked. I'd love to see your results. Thanks.
Kenn
LBNL
On 2/29/2008 11:21 AM, Joe Casadonte wrote:
> On 2/29/2008 1:50 PM, Ke
On 2/29/2008 2:01 PM, Greg Evans wrote:
> All of this information currently goes into comments and the things that I
> have tagged as working already work properly which is fine, though I would
> prefer that only the "Comments:" goes to comments.
I allow a CF to be set via email and I strip it o
On 2/29/2008 1:50 PM, Kenneth Crocker wrote:
> Hypothetical situations could involve endless debate, especially if
> they are based on an unrealistic scenario. Not to offend nor sound too
> incredulous, but why would anyone name ANY custom fields the same names
> for different applications/
Hello,
I would like to send a ticket in via email and have all of the following
actually add itself to the database:
Status:
Owner:
Queue:
RealName: Greg Evans
Name: Greg Evans
Requestor:
HomePhone: 360-462-4734
Password: 12345678
CustomField.{Operating System}: Windows <---Seems to work unl
Joe,
Hypothetical situations could involve endless debate, especially if
they are based on an unrealistic scenario. Not to offend nor sound too
incredulous, but why would anyone name ANY custom fields the same names
for different applications/uses? Why not just prefix the "queue-based"
Assume:
* Ticket #1 is in the Queue Q1
* Custom Field #1, named Foo, applies to all queues
* Foo's value for Ticket #1 is 'Global'
A query results listing that includes CustomField.{Foo} will properly
show 'Global' for the value of Foo.
Change the assumptions:
* Ticket #1 is in the Queue Q1
*
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 02:30:43PM +0300, Ruslan Zakirov wrote:
> I've fixed it in 3.7 dev branch recently.
One thing I've wanted to be able to do but I've not seen how to do
easily is to where-clause for tickets with no unresolved dependencies.
Is this possible in TicketSQL?
TTFN
--
Roger.
I've fixed it in 3.7 dev branch recently.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 7:15 AM, Tom Lanyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 29/02/2008, at 1:18 PM, Tom Lanyon wrote:
>
> > Hi List,
> >
> > Can I add a clause to my Ticket SQL query to say "has a dependancy" ?
> >
> > I am searching for tickets but d
13 matches
Mail list logo
