[rt-users] Grouping Custom Fields
KFCrocker at lbl.gov
Wed Nov 21 12:48:46 EST 2007
I don't have an answer for you, but YOU have one for me. You mentioned
a scrip that allows "RT to re-open a ticket" if certain fields/values
meet a condition. I have need of just such a scrip. Being a 'PERL'
novice, I try to gather as many scrips that are models of various
conditions/actions as I can for reference as I build my own. The one you
mentioned is EXTREMELY similar to what I need. Would you mind terribly
posting it here or passing it back to me in "REPLY"? I could certainly
use the help. Thanks.
On 11/20/2007 6:55 PM, Ian Petts wrote:
> I am new to RT and have been tasked with a project I am finding rather
> We are running RT 3.4.4 and need to ensure certain fields are
> completed before a ticket can be closed. Searching the list archives
> it appears that making certain fields mandatory was added in a more
> recent version, but I managed to find a scrip I can use with our
> current version that allows RT to re-open a ticket if certain fields
> have a particular value (null value in this case). This is working
> The problem I am encountering however is that there is a requirement
> to have these particular fields separate from the other custom fields
> in RT. What we need is to have custom fields a, b and c in the Basics
> view and fields d, e and f (although more than likely non-sequential)
> on another page. We also don't need or want to see "d, e and f" during
> the ticket creation process, as these fields are only relevant to
> ticket closure. (They are in fact relating to having updated network
> diagrams and documentation).
> I have what I consider to be a nasty hack working to do this at the
> moment; I've added a "Checklist" item to the tab bar, pointing to a
> copy of the EditCustomFields element and have a perl hash containing
> the names of the fields I want on this form. As we loop around the "my
> $CustomField = $CustomFields->Next()" portion of the EditCustomFields,
> it simply performs a perl "next" if the field is not in the hash. For
> the original EditCustomFields element, the opposite is true; it
> processes the next field if the current field IS in the hash.
> I will likely attempt upgrading to the latest version of RT in the
> future, however at this time I am currently not comfortable enough
> with the software or environment to attempt to do so.
> Is there a cleaner and simpler way to achieve separation of particular
> custom fields in RT 3.4.4?
> SAVE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON RT SUPPORT:
> If you sign up for a new RT support contract before December 31, we'll take
> up to 20 percent off the price. This sale won't last long, so get in touch today.
> Email us at sales at bestpractical.com or call us at +1 617 812 0745.
> Community help: http://wiki.bestpractical.com
> Commercial support: sales at bestpractical.com
> Discover RT's hidden secrets with RT Essentials from O'Reilly Media.
> Buy a copy at http://rtbook.bestpractical.com
More information about the rt-users