[rt-users] [SLA] Custom (and very imperfect) solution for parking stalled tickets

[Ruslan Zakirov]

Hi,

We've implemented something that is simple and should work in most
common cases. You can try it from our repository. Note that it needs a
DB upgrade.

https://github.com/bestpractical/rt-extension-sla

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Robert Wysocki
<robert.wysocki at contium.pl> wrote:
> Dnia 2012-06-12, wto o godzinie 18:24 +0400, Ruslan Zakirov pisze:
>>
>> Sorry. Didn't notice that.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you need additional data storage.
>
> Additional storage in form of CF's in my solution is merely a product of
> the lack of time. I needed it to work and the simplest way was then for
> me to code it like this.
> Now I see some other options; I belive that if I move the scrip-part of
> the code to module code I won't have the need for additional storage any
> more.
>
>> I see putting Due
>> date on hold in the following way:
>>
>> 1) When status is changed from initial/active to some that marked as
>> "on hold", we just unset Due date. We can not keep old value in the
>> Due field as it will mess sorting of tickets.
>>
>> 2) When status is changed from "on hold" to any active, we
>> re-calculate Due date.
>
> That sounds good.
>
>> Re-calculation is hard to make sane. RT out of the box opens tickets
>> on replies, so reply and activation from "on hold" events match.
>
> In our case we decided that in the event of re-activating ticket after
> it was parked for some time we change it's status to "open". So we
> really don't care about what other scrips do to tickets' status - our
> logic goes the other way.
>
>> This
>> case is very simple, we treat it as any other reply.
>
> We shoudn't change status to "open" if reply wasn't from one of the
> requestors - ticket should stay parked.
>
>> It becomes questionable when people disable "auto open" on some
>> replies. There are several interesting timelines that may happen:
>>
>> 1) reply ... on hold ... no replies ... activation
>> 2) reply ... on hold ... reply(ies) ... activation
>>
>> In first case due date can be calculated from reply plus time ticket
>> was on hold. Second case is harder and I'm still not sure how to treat
>> it.
>
> In our logic there's no place for ticket activation when there was no
> reply from one of the requestors.
> In other words if someone will activate a parked ticket "by hand"
> recalculation won't happen.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> Robert Wysocki
> administrator systemów linuksowych
> Contium S.A., http://www.contium.pl
>
>



-- 
Best regards, Ruslan.