[rt-users] absence planning

[Alex Peters]

I believe that the "Absent" custom field belongs to users rather than
tickets.  If that is correct, your code should read as follows:

my $CFval = $self->TicketObj->OwnerObj->FirstCustomFieldValue(27);
return 1 if defined $CFval and $CFval eq 'Yes';

Note that values are case-sensitive, so a capital Y is required.  Does this
help?

(P.S.  Please reply-all to ensure that the list remains informed of this
discussion.)


On 31 July 2014 21:04, Eierschmalz, Bernhard <
Bernhard.Eierschmalz at scheppach.com> wrote:

>  Hallo Alex,
>
>
>
> If I understand correctly you mean when the Custom Field is not set, my
> $CFval will be undefined?
>
> But the custom field for my testuser (who is owner of my test ticket) is
> set to ‘no’
>
>
>
> Could it be that the type of the custom field matters? I have selected
> “choose one value”. My values are:
>
>
>
> Sort
>
> Name
>
> Description
>
> Category
>
> 0
>
> Yes
>
> Absent yes
>
> <empty>
>
> 1
>
> No
>
> Absent no
>
> <empty>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It seems that either your custom field isn't named precisely "absent", or
> perhaps you are running an older version of RT which doesn't support
> loading custom fields by name.  If using the ID (27) works for you, it is
> probably best to just use that for now.
>
>
>
> It is named absent, and I user RT 4.2.6 – but I think anyway it’s better
> to use the ID.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Bernhard
>
>
>
> *Von:* Alex Peters [mailto:alex at peters.net]
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 31. Juli 2014 12:28
> *An:* Eierschmalz, Bernhard; rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com
>
> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [rt-users] absence planning
>
>
>
> The uninitialized value warnings can be solved by changing the test line:
>
>
>
> my $CFval = $self->TicketObj->FirstCustomFieldValue(27);
>
> return 1 if defined $CFval and $CFval eq 'yes';
>
>
>
> since when the custom field is not set, $CFval will be undefined.
>
>
>
> It seems that either your custom field isn't named precisely "absent", or
> perhaps you are running an older version of RT which doesn't support
> loading custom fields by name.  If using the ID (27) works for you, it is
> probably best to just use that for now.
>
>
>
> On 31 July 2014 19:50, Eierschmalz, Bernhard <
> Bernhard.Eierschmalz at scheppach.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Alex,
>
>
>
> your idea with 2 scrips running independent of each other sounds good – I
> will try this.
>
>
>
> But first, I still have the problem by loading the CF.
>
> I tried around a little bit – but no solution. I changed my Condition to
> the following:
>
>
>
> *my $CFval = $self->TicketObj->FirstCustomFieldValue(27);*
>
> *return 1 if $CFval eq 'yes';*
>
>
>
> I receive the following failure:
>
> *[12166] [Thu Jul 31 09:37:56 2014] [warning]: Use of uninitialized value
> $CFval in string eq at (eval 807) line 2. ((eval 807):2)*
>
> *[12166] [Thu Jul 31 09:37:58 2014] [warning]: Use of uninitialized value
> $CFval in string eq at (eval 816) line 2. ((eval 816):2)*
>
>
>
> 27 is the ID of my Custom field. When I change to
> *FirstCustomFieldValue(‘absent’)* I receive the following failure message:
>
>
>
> *[12166] [Thu Jul 31 09:49:00 2014] [warning]: Couldn't load custom field
> by 'absent' identifier (/opt/rt4/sbin/../lib/RT/Record.pm:2231)*
>
> *[12166] [Thu Jul 31 09:49:00 2014] [warning]: Use of uninitialized value
> $CFval in string eq at (eval 829) line 2. ((eval 829):2)*
>
> *[12166] [Thu Jul 31 09:49:06 2014] [warning]: Couldn't load custom field
> by 'absent' identifier (/opt/rt4/sbin/../lib/RT/Record.pm:2231)*
>
> *[12166] [Thu Jul 31 09:49:06 2014] [warning]: Use of uninitialized value
> $CFval in string eq at (eval 838) line 2. ((eval 838):2)*
>
>
>
> What should I do now?
>
>
>
>
>
> best Regards,
>
> Bernhard
>
>
>
> *Von:* Alex Peters [mailto:alex at peters.net]
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 25. Juli 2014 01:53
>
>
> *An:* Eierschmalz, Bernhard
> *Cc:* rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com
>
> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [rt-users] absence planning
>
>
>
> I feel that you are overcomplicating your scrip by testing for a status
> change (which is actually a side effect of another scrip), because your
> primary goal is to perform this action when correspondence occurs.
>
> If I were in your position, I would have two scrips in place:
>
> 1.  On (correspond AND owner is absent AND ticket is stalled/resolved),
> set owner to Nobody.  Runs first.
>
> 2.  On correspond, open inactive tickets.  Runs second.
>
> Actually, in your position I would probably assign an additional
> "Exclusive" custom field to tickets that when set to true, indicates that
> the ticket can only be worked on by the current owner.  Then I would change
> Scrip 1's condition to "on (correspond AND owner absent AND ticket not
> exclusive)."  That way, the status isn't used to convey that meaning.
>
> Custom fields can be loaded by name, so that shouldn't be failing for
> you.  Is "absent" the exact name of the field?  What is the exact code that
> you are using?
>
> On 25/07/2014 12:44 am, "Eierschmalz, Bernhard" <
> Bernhard.Eierschmalz at scheppach.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Alex,
>
>
>
> I user RT 4.2.6
>
> In my error logs I find the following:
>
> *[3066] [Thu Jul 24 14:16:20 2014] [warning]: Couldn't load custom field
> by 'absent' identifier (/opt/rt4/sbin/../lib/RT/Record.pm:2231)*
>
> *[3066] [Thu Jul 24 14:16:20 2014] [warning]: Use of uninitialized value
> in string eq at (eval 896) line 1. ((eval 896):1)*
>
> *[3066] [Thu Jul 24 14:16:23 2014] [warning]: Couldn't load custom field
> by 'absent' identifier (/opt/rt4/sbin/../lib/RT/Record.pm:2231)*
>
> *[3066] [Thu Jul 24 14:16:23 2014] [warning]: Use of uninitialized value
> in string eq at (eval 905) line 1. ((eval 905):1)*
>
>
>
> What does this mean? Should I identify  the CF by ID?
>
>
>
> If I understand you correctly, the "on correspond, open inactive tickets"
> scrip is interfering with your ability to test whether an absent owner's
> ticket was previously marked as stalled or resolved rather than open.  If
> you move your scrip to execute before the scrip that opens inactive tickets
> on correspond, the interference should no longer occur.
>
>
>
> Not exactly. Let me explain once again.
>
> When a user is absent, he maybe has open tickets, and for sure has many
> resolved and stalled tickets.
>
>
>
> The open tickets are tickets, only this user can resolve, and this user
> decides to resolve this ticket after his absence. (e.g. because this is a
> large project)
>
> When there is any transaction (e.g. an answer from client or somebody) the
> owner of this ticket should not be changed (because the owner will resolve
> it after his absence)
>
> on open tickets the “on correspond, open inactive tickets” isn’t
> triggered, so the status doesn’t change, and my scrip doesn’t run
>
>
>
> Now over to the resolved and stalled tickets: when there is any
> transaction on these tickets, user should be set to “nobody” to inform the
> other colleagues about this tickets.
>
> On the transaction, firstly the “on correspond, open inactive tickets” is
> triggered and changes the state from stalled or resolved to “open”
>
> Now my scrip triggers this status change and changes the user to “nobody”.
>
>
>
> I hope you can see my idea more clear now.
>
>
>
> best regards
>
> Bernhard
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Alex Peters [mailto:alex at peters.net]
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2014 16:11
> *An:* Eierschmalz, Bernhard
> *Cc:* rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com
> *Betreff:* Re: [rt-users] absence planning
>
>
>
> There might be API inconsistency across RT versions.  What version of RT
> are you using?  Also, are you receiving any errors in RT's logs when that
> code runs?
>
>
>
> If I understand you correctly, the "on correspond, open inactive tickets"
> scrip is interfering with your ability to test whether an absent owner's
> ticket was previously marked as stalled or resolved rather than open.  If
> you move your scrip to execute before the scrip that opens inactive tickets
> on correspond, the interference should no longer occur.
>
>
>
> On 24 July 2014 23:56, Eierschmalz, Bernhard <
> Bernhard.Eierschmalz at scheppach.com> wrote:
>
> So now I try:
>
> *return 1 if $self->TicketObj->FirstCustomFieldValue('absent') eq "yes";*
>
>
>
> But it still doesn’t work. What is wrong?
>
>
>
> I don't understand why you are testing for a ticket status change.
>  Wouldn't you want the scrip to run only when correspondence occurs?
>
> A user usually changes all his tickets to “stalled” or “resolved” when
> he’s absent. When the user leaves tickets on “open” during his absence that
> means, nobody else can finish this ticket, only he can do it (e.g. on
> larger projects)
>
> So when one of the stalled or resolved tickets receive an answer, the
> status is changed and with my scrip the user will be nobody.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Bernhard
>
>
>
> *Von:* Alex Peters [mailto:alex at peters.net]
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2014 15:33
> *An:* Eierschmalz, Bernhard
> *Cc:* rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com
> *Betreff:* Re: [rt-users] absence planning
>
>
>
> You can probably use:
>
>
>
> $self->TicketObj->OwnerObj->FirstCustomFieldValue('absent')
>
>
>
> to access the value of the owner's "absent" custom field.
>
>
>
> I don't understand why you are testing for a ticket status change.
>  Wouldn't you want the scrip to run only when correspondence occurs?
>
>
>
> On 24 July 2014 23:14, Eierschmalz, Bernhard <
> Bernhard.Eierschmalz at scheppach.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I want to build some absence planning into our RT to avoid that absent
> users receive messages and nobody sees this message. What I’m planning is
> the following:
>
>
>
> 1.      Creating a user’s custom field “absent” which is yes or no
>
> 2.      When a user is absence, this user changes this field to yes, when
> he’s back he changes back to no
>
> 3.      When the status of one ticket with absent owner (where custom
> field value is “yes”) changes, the owner show be set to nobody (so the
> other colleagues can find the ticket
>
>
>
>
>
> so I planned to set up this with a Scrip.
>
> Scrip Action is easy. It’s
>
> *$self->TicketObj->SetOwner ( $RT::Nobody->id );*
>
> *Return 1;*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What I’m having problems with is Scrip Condition.
>
>
>
> For the first step, I tried to run the scrip on any update, so I only have
> to check whether the absent-CF is yes or no
>
> I tried the following line:
>
> *return 1 if
> $self->TicketObj->Owner->Customfields->CustomFieldValue(‘absent’) eq “yes”;*
>
>
>
> but this isn’t working. What is wrong?
>
>
>
>
>
> A second step will be to check, what exactly was changed (and only run if
> status was changed).
>
> I think I can do this with
>
> *return 0 unless $self->TransactionObj->Type eq “Status” *
>
>
>
> in front of the other code; am I right?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Bernhard,
>
>
> --
> RT Training - Boston, September 9-10
> http://bestpractical.com/training
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bestpractical.com/pipermail/rt-users/attachments/20140731/2770cab7/attachment.htm>