[rt-users] RT Assets grouping behaviour

2015-11-15 Thread Brett Chambers
Hi,

 

I've been experimenting with RT Assets - specifically Asset custom field
grouping
 . I've encountered the following behaviour, which seems like a bug to
me.

 

In RT_SiteConfig.pm, I'm trying to add Asset custom fields to the built in
grouping 'Basics'. Extract below.

 

Set(%CustomFieldGroupings,

'RT::Ticket' => [

'Product Details' => ['Manufacturer', 'Product', 'Master ID', 'Part
number', 'Part description', 'Serial Number', '', 'Date of Purchase',
'Purchased from'],

'Basics'  => ['SLA', 'Fault Type'],

'People'  => ['Phone number', 'Postcode'],

'RA Details'  => ['Detail of Fault', 'Warranty Status', 'Pronto
Job #', 'Vendor RA Approval #', 'Vendor RA Order #', 'Vendor shipping
method', 'Incoming Vendor tracking', 'Faulty part received', 'Replacement
part received', 'Replacement part sent', 'Outgoing Vendor tracking'],

'Support Actions' => ['Return auto-reply'],

],

 

'RT::Asset' => {

'Basics'=> ['Manufacturer', 'Master ID', 'Part number',
'Serial number', 'Install date'],

},

);

 

When I go the 'Create Asset' page to create a new asset in the defined Asset
Catalog, my custom fields do not appear under 'Basics'.

However, if I search 'Assets', the Custom Fields appear under the built in
'Basics' group.

 

The behaviour is different to that of creating a new Ticket - custom fields
appear under the 'Basics' built in group for tickets, as you would expect.

 

Furthermore, if I use a custom grouping name instead of the built in
'Basics' (e.g. 'My Asset'), the defined group and the assigned CFs appear in
the 'Create Asset' page.

 

 

Has anyone experienced this behaviour before, or should I log a bug for it?

 

Version info

RT v4.2.12

RT Assets v1.0.5

 

Regards,

Brett

 

 



Re: [rt-users] RT Assets grouping behaviour

2015-11-29 Thread Brett Chambers
Thanks Armin,

 

That did the trick!

 

I did get a reply off the list too (thanks Tony) advising of
$AssetBasicCustomFieldsOnCreate; I appreciate the link to the Assets_Config
page - can't believe I missed it before.

 

Cheers,

Brett

 

From: Armin Liedtke [mailto:armha...@uw.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 7:07 AM
To: Brett Chambers <bchamb...@ambertech.com.au>;
rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com
Subject: RE: [rt-users] RT Assets grouping behaviour

 

Brett,

 

I didn't see any replies to this so I thought I would send this along.

Check out $AssetBasicCustomFieldsOnCreate

https://www.bestpractical.com/docs/assets/1.05/Assets_Config.html

 

Set($AssetBasicCustomFieldsOnCreate, ['Manufacturer', 'Master ID', 'Part
number', 'Serial number', 'Install date'] );

 

Hope that helps!

 

Armin

 

 

From: rt-users [mailto:rt-users-boun...@lists.bestpractical.com] On Behalf
Of Brett Chambers
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 5:23 PM
To: rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com
<mailto:rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com> 
Subject: [rt-users] RT Assets grouping behaviour

 

Hi,

 

I've been experimenting with RT Assets - specifically Asset custom field
grouping
<https://www.bestpractical.com/docs/assets/1.0/RT/Extension/Assets.html#Grou
pings> . I've encountered the following behaviour, which seems like a bug to
me.

 

In RT_SiteConfig.pm, I'm trying to add Asset custom fields to the built in
grouping 'Basics'. Extract below.

 

Set(%CustomFieldGroupings,

'RT::Ticket' => [

'Product Details' => ['Manufacturer', 'Product', 'Master ID', 'Part
number', 'Part description', 'Serial Number', '', 'Date of Purchase',
'Purchased from'],

'Basics'  => ['SLA', 'Fault Type'],

'People'  => ['Phone number', 'Postcode'],

'RA Details'  => ['Detail of Fault', 'Warranty Status', 'Pronto
Job #', 'Vendor RA Approval #', 'Vendor RA Order #', 'Vendor shipping
method', 'Incoming Vendor tracking', 'Faulty part received', 'Replacement
part received', 'Replacement part sent', 'Outgoing Vendor tracking'],

'Support Actions' => ['Return auto-reply'],

],

 

'RT::Asset' => {

'Basics'=> ['Manufacturer', 'Master ID', 'Part number',
'Serial number', 'Install date'],

},

);

 

When I go the 'Create Asset' page to create a new asset in the defined Asset
Catalog, my custom fields do not appear under 'Basics'.

However, if I search 'Assets', the Custom Fields appear under the built in
'Basics' group.

 

The behaviour is different to that of creating a new Ticket - custom fields
appear under the 'Basics' built in group for tickets, as you would expect.

 

Furthermore, if I use a custom grouping name instead of the built in
'Basics' (e.g. 'My Asset'), the defined group and the assigned CFs appear in
the 'Create Asset' page.

 

 

Has anyone experienced this behaviour before, or should I log a bug for it?

 

Version info

RT v4.2.12

RT Assets v1.0.5

 

Regards,

Brett

 

 



Re: [rt-users] RT Bounces

2017-01-19 Thread Brett Chambers
Dunno if this helps or not, but maybe the bounce is due to it detecting a loop?

 

[18000] [Fri Jan 20 04:29:36 2017] [critical]: RT Received mail 
( >
) from itself. (/opt/rt4/sbin/../lib/RT/Interface/Email.pm:506)

 

Try and take a look at /opt/rt4/lib/RT/Interface/Email.pm around the line 
numbers reported.

Not suggesting you change anything, looking might give you a few clues…

 

You didn’t specify a version – this is what I see in 4.2.12.

 



#if it's from a postmaster or mailer daemon, it's likely a bounce.

 

#TODO: better algorithms needed here - there is no standards for

#bounces, so it's very difficult to separate them from anything

#else.  At the other hand, the Return-To address is only ment to be

#used as an error channel, we might want to put up a separate

#Return-To address which is treated differently.

 

#TODO: search through the whole email and find the right Ticket ID.



 



Checks the message to see if it's a bounce, if it looks like a loop, if it's 
autogenerated, etc.

Returns a triple of ("Should we continue (boolean)", "New value for $ErrorsTo", 
"Status message",

"This message appears to be a loop (boolean)" );



 



# send mail to the sender

if ( $IsBounce || $IsSuspiciousSender || $IsAutoGenerated || $IsALoop ) {

$SquelchReplies = 1;

$ErrorsTo   = $owner_mail;

}

 

# Warn someone if it's a loop, before we drop it on the ground

if ($IsALoop) {

$RT::Logger->crit("RT Received mail (".$args{MessageId}.") from 
itself.");

 

#Should we mail it to RTOwner?

if ( RT->Config->Get('LoopsToRTOwner') ) {

MailError(

To  => $owner_mail,

   Subject => "RT Bounce: ".$args{'Subject'},

Explanation => "RT thinks this message may be a bounce",

MIMEObj => $args{Message}

);

}

 

#Do we actually want to store it?

return ( 0, $ErrorsTo, "Message Bounced", $IsALoop )

unless RT->Config->Get('StoreLoops');

}



 

Anyway, just a thought.

If it is a bounce loop, might be related to SSL/certificates?

 

Regards,

Brett

 

 

From: rt-users [mailto:rt-users-boun...@lists.bestpractical.com] On Behalf Of 
Jayson Antillon
Sent: Friday, 20 January 2017 3:34 PM
To: rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com
Subject: [rt-users] RT Bounces

 

Hello,

I have searched through the list archives, and read a ton of posts regarding 
bounces but have not been able narrow down what issue I am having specifically. 
 I have not modified any scrips from default.  Have one queue that is in use 
"Incident Reports', with the addresses incid...@rt.mydomain.com 
  and incident-comme...@rt.mydomain.com 
  configured in /etc/aliases, any 
response to the autogenerated emails or new emails to sent to 
incid...@rt.mydomains.com   are showing 
bounces.

I will include as much information as I have seen asked for in other  posts.



/etc/aliases


# See man 5 aliases for format
incident: "|/opt/rt4/bin/rt-mailgate --queue 'Incident Reports' 
--no-verify-ssl --action correspond --url https://rt.mydomain.com;
incident-comments: "|/opt/rt4/bin/rt-mailgate --queue 'Incident 
Reports'  --no-verify-ssl --action comment  --url https://rt.mydomain.com;

 

Bounce message:



>From MAILER-DAEMON  Thu Jan 19 22:11:35 2017
Return-Path: <>
X-Original-To: jayson
Delivered-To: jay...@rt.mydomain.com  
Received: by rt.mydomain.com   (Postfix, from userid 33)
id AEF0A140AB8; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 22:11:35 -0600 (CST)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--=_1484885495-18000-19"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.508 (Entity 5.508)
To: jay...@rt.mydomain.com  
Precedence: bulk
Subject: RT Bounce:
From: incid...@rt.mydomain.com  
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 22:11:35 -0600
Message-Id: <20170120041135.aef0a140...@rt.mydomain.com 
 >

This is a multi-part message in MIME format...

=_1484885495-18000-19
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary

RT thinks this message may be a bounce

=_1484885495-18000-19--





mail log from rt server 

Jan 19 22:21:25 rt postfix/smtpd[18877]: connect from mail-yw0-f180.google.com 
 [209.85.161.180]
Jan 19 22:21:26 rt postfix/smtpd[18877]: 05F14140AAD: 
client=mail-yw0-f180.google.com  
[209.85.161.180]
Jan 19 22:21:26 rt postfix/cleanup[18881]: 05F14140AAD: 

Re: [rt-users] HTML/Rich Text Article Entries?

2017-01-16 Thread Brett Chambers
Hi,

 

I was just asking because I was interested in upgrading to 4.4 – I’ll need to 
investigate that carefully on a test system by the sounds of it as am using 
that in 4.2.

 

The # char at the beginning of a line is for comment (provided it’s not in the 
very first line http://people.cryst.bbk.ac.uk/~tickle/notes/comments.html), so 
that code is valid and not a comment.

 

Regards,

Brett

 

From: Aaron Lush [mailto:al...@scentral.k12.in.us] 
Sent: Friday, 13 January 2017 1:15 AM
To: 'Brett Chambers' <bchamb...@ambertech.com.au>; 'rt-users' 
<rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com>
Subject: RE: [rt-users] HTML/Rich Text Article Entries?

 

Don’t rule out that I did something incorrectly, but, no, this did nothing to 
the Article WikiText Custom Field. I followed everything listed under “Convert 
Wiki Text CF into a Rich Text CF.”

 

On a sidenote, the thing that I thought funny is the code “%# --- Wiki Text 
Area ==> Rich Text Area ---.” Doesn’t the hash mark after the percent sign 
indicate a comment and to bypass the code? Granted, I’m no PERL programmer, so 
keep that in mind .

 

Sincerely,

 

Aaron Lush

Network Administrator

South Central Community School Corporation

(219) 767-2266 ext. 

 

From: rt-users [mailto:rt-users-boun...@lists.bestpractical.com] On Behalf Of 
Brett Chambers
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 9:53 PM
To: 'rt-users' <rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com 
<mailto:rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com> >
Subject: Re: [rt-users] HTML/Rich Text Article Entries?

 

So this https://rt-wiki.bestpractical.com/wiki/Rich_Text_Custom_Fields doesn’t 
work in RT 4.4?

 

From: rt-users [mailto:rt-users-boun...@lists.bestpractical.com] On Behalf Of 
Aaron Lush
Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2017 7:01 AM
To: 'rt-users' <rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com 
<mailto:rt-users@lists.bestpractical.com> >
Subject: [rt-users] HTML/Rich Text Article Entries?

 

Is there a way I can modify Articles’ configuration so that they may feature 
HTML/Rich-Text/Images, same as tickets? It seems custom fields is the ticket, 
but all Wiki articles I’ve scoured on the subject wind up breaking RT 
<https://rt-wiki.bestpractical.com/wiki/Main_Page> .

 

I’m running RT 4.4 on an Ubuntu 16.10 box.

 

Sincerely,

 

Aaron Lush

Network Administrator

South Central Community School Corporation

(219) 767-2266 ext.  


Email Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including all attachments, is 
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains confidential 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disclose, 
print, copy or disseminate this information. Please reply and notify the 
sender, delete the message and any attachments and destroy all copies. 


Email Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including all attachments, is 
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains confidential 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disclose, 
print, copy or disseminate this information. Please reply and notify the 
sender, delete the message and any attachments and destroy all copies. 



Re: [rt-users] HTML/Rich Text Article Entries?

2017-01-10 Thread Brett Chambers
So this https://rt-wiki.bestpractical.com/wiki/Rich_Text_Custom_Fields doesn’t 
work in RT 4.4?

 

From: rt-users [mailto:rt-users-boun...@lists.bestpractical.com] On Behalf Of 
Aaron Lush
Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2017 7:01 AM
To: 'rt-users' 
Subject: [rt-users] HTML/Rich Text Article Entries?

 

Is there a way I can modify Articles’ configuration so that they may feature 
HTML/Rich-Text/Images, same as tickets? It seems custom fields is the ticket, 
but all Wiki articles I’ve scoured on the subject wind up breaking RT 
 .

 

I’m running RT 4.4 on an Ubuntu 16.10 box.

 

Sincerely,

 

Aaron Lush

Network Administrator

South Central Community School Corporation

(219) 767-2266 ext.  


Email Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including all attachments, is 
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and contains confidential 
information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disclose, 
print, copy or disseminate this information. Please reply and notify the 
sender, delete the message and any attachments and destroy all copies. 



[rt-users] Self Service interface - can't download attachments for Articles or Assets

2017-01-04 Thread Brett Chambers
Hi Everyone,

 

I've configured custom fields of the type 'Upload multiple files' for Assets
and Articles.

 

If my users are Privileged, they can see and download the contents of the
'Upload multiple files' custom fields with no problems.

 

However, if my users are Unprivileged (i.e. using the Self Service
interface), they can see the attached files, however they can't download
them.

Clicking on the file links take you back to the self-service home page, and
a right click, Save Target As doesn't work either.

 

I've tried changing global permissions for Unprivileged users, the custom
fields, etc, however haven't had any success.

 

Running RT 4.2.12.

I notice that there are significant improvements to the file upload code in
RT 4.4.x, however I haven't seen anything that explicitly relates to the
above issue.

 

Has anyone else seen this behaviour or know what I'm doing wrong?

 

Cheers,

Brett