[rt-devel] Problems with a RT2 support scenario

[Jesse]

On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 07:54:18PM +0200, Jonas Liljegren wrote:
> I downloaded the latest version from CVS at 2001-05-02 (YYYY-MM-DD),
> version 1.3.70.
> 
> I can't decide if I want to include too much or too little
> information.  Just say if I should supply more info.
> 
> 
> The intention is to have mail to support at rit.se placed in the RT2
> system.  An email should go out to those who answer support emails.
> That email should include the message and a link to the ticket.
>
A 'Notify adminccs on create' scrip should do that.

> We don't want two persons to answer the email.  The ideal would maby
> be to have a link for taking the ticket wight from the email and have
> that fail if somebody else already have taken in.

Take should fail if the ticket already has an owner.

> I can't find out what AdminWatchers and AdminCC is supposed to be used
> for.  I set up the support staff as AsminWatchers. 

You set them up either as QueueCC or QueueAdminCc. there should be
nothing labeled 'AdminWatchers.' where was it?

> I created a new
> template NewTicket based on the AdminCorrespondence template.  And
> created a scrip in the support cue:
>         OnCreate NotifyAdminWatchers with template NewTicket
> 
> The following correspondence should not generate emails to the staff.
> Only the ticket owner (and persons involved in the correspondence)
> should get the emails.
> 
> The person who do a change, comment or correspondence should not get
> an email, but if it's not the owner, the owner should get one.  I
> entered these two global scrips:
>         OnComment NotifyOwnerAsComment AdminComment
>         OnCorrespond NotifyRequestorsAndCcs Correspondence
> 
> 
> Is this how it is supposed to be done?
> 
> 
> 
> And now to the problems:
> 
> 1. The NewTicket templated does not include the actual correspondence
> in the ticket.  Sometimes it does, but often it doesn't.  Is it the
> case that a multipart message isn't resent with the NewTicket
> template?

Correct. Currently, only the primary message part is resent.  This 
may or may not change by 2.0.0

> 
> I would like to know there I can finde documentation for the methods
> availible for $Ticket, $Transaction, Message(), First(), etc...

perldoc RT::Ticket
perldoc RT::Transaction

Message and First are both, iirc, MIME::Entity objects...

> 
> 
> 2. An admin gets the email about the new ticket, goes to the web
> interface and along with the reply, changes the status to open and
> changes the owner.
> 
> I think that the status of a ticket should change to open at the same
> time it is taken or a reply is made.  It seems uneccessary extra job
> to first take a ticket and then open it.  This can be done in one step
> during a reply to a new ticket, but it still seems strange.
>

I believe it is. when a ticket is acted on, if it's "new", it should become
"open."  if it's not, submit a clear, consise bug report to
rt-2.0-bugs at fsck.com

> 
> 3. A reply to a ticket via the web interface back to the requestor
> somethimes has CRLF line endings.  I guess this showes up because at
> least one line ending is not CRLF.
 
All line endings, should, iirc, be CRLF.  Browsers are horridly inconsistent
about what they send.


> 4. I used a scrip to notify a change of status to the ticket owner:
> 
>    OnStatus NotifyOwner StatusChange
> 
> In (2) above, an admin has just taken the ticket, changing it's status
> to open.  That triggerd the changed status email.  But that email a)
> bounced because no recipient was specified, and b) the template
> produced an error response:
>

Won't happen any more with 1.3.71

> 5. I winder if the dubble '/' in the templates is because the template
> of the configuration is faulty.  Is says:
> 
>         $WebURL = $WebBaseURL . $WebPath. "/";
> 

Possibly. I'll have a look at the templates

> 7. I am glad to find configuration options for initial and final
> priority for tickets in a specific que, along with how many days
> before the request is due.
> 
> But it seems that the priority isn't calculated based on the creation
> date, due days, start and end priority.  I set the sorting of requests
> in priority order and found that only the start priority was used.

I suspect that only the current priority is used. there is currently
no automated priority recalculation.
> 
> I would also like the home page display of owned tickets to be sorted
> in priority order, or at least show the current priority.

It's done in 1.3.71

> 
> 
> 8. In Administration : Queues : Watchers, the title just says "Modify
> people  related to queue3" instead of using the name of the queue.
> (It seems strange to push "save changes" to find people.  It's more
> like 'submit'.)

It's a standard button name. and the header was a known bug and has been
fixed.  Before submitting bug reports, it can be helpful to make sure
that the bugs you're reporting aren't already noted at 
http://fsck.com/rt2/NoAuth/Buglist.html
> 
> 
> 9. I would like to have filters convert word and PDF documents to HTML
> or plain text.
>

That would be cool.  If you put together code to do it, I'll drop it
in /contrib.

> 
> 
> That's all for now.
> 
> 
> -- 
> / Jonas  -  http://jonas.liljegren.org/myself/en/index.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rt-devel mailing list
> Rt-devel at lists.fsck.com
> http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-devel
> 

-- 
jesse reed vincent -- root at eruditorum.org -- jesse at fsck.com 
70EBAC90: 2A07 FC22 7DB4 42C1 9D71 0108 41A3 3FB3 70EB AC90

  "Mary had a crypto key / She kept it in escrow
     And everything that Mary said / The Feds were sure to know" -- Sam Simpson