Reopen Closed Incidents VIA Email, And Have Routing Rules Applied Afterwards????
Okay I am trying to create an incident rule that will reopen a closed incident when an update is sent to a closed ticket via email, have it strip the assigned to and owned by fields and let it be processed by the routing rules over again.
To give an example, our helpdesk is split into East, Central, and West queues. We have routing rules in place that looks at a contacts location and routes according to what region they are located in. If a contact submits an initial request, it goes to the appropriate queue, then incident is assigned to a specific worker, then it is worked to completion and then closed. Then later the contact determined that it really wasn't fixed or the problem reoccurred, we then want for them to submit an email update and reopen the incident. The problem I am having is that it was assigned to a specific worker and owner at that point and I would like for the incident rule to remove the specific worker and owner automatically and allow the routing rules to reprocess and dump the incident back into the appropriate queue for reassignment.
I currently have the following in place:
When modified by name changes and is equal to helpdesk
When status is equal to closed
Set status to Requested
Set close code to None
I have tried setting - Set Owned by Worker to [unassigned] - but this does not actually change the owned by worker at all.
I also tried adding a manual Advanced Assignment to "Set Assigned To Worker to [unassigned] as well and that did not do it either.
Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Thanks in advance!
Comments
Is the rule applying?
Is the rule applied when an e-mail update to a closed incident occurs? If so, then we need to look at the 'Set these properties' conditions (that is, the Set status to Request and Set Close code items, not to mention the assignments). If not, then your When: And: conditions need to be looked at.
Is the rule applying, status is changing to Request, and close code is being set to None, but you're having trouble with assignment? Or does the rule fail altogether?
Mike Clemson, Systems Engineer
Intuitive Technology Group -- Symantec Platinum Partner
yeah setting those fields to
yeah setting those fields to those values should take care of that automatically. I'd be interested in seeing if your rule is firing.
I'd pay especially close attention to your "When modified by name is equal to Helpdesk" line. In fact if it's not firing I'd take out the "Changes" checkbox and make sure you don't have an extra space anywhere in the box where you've specified helpdesk.
- Matt
Rule is firing
The rule is firing, it changes the status to open and closed codes just fine, but I cannot get it to remove the Assigned To and Owned By fields. I am also trying to figure out if I can get that working, will the routing rules re-fire or how can I get that to work after the incident rule changes the fields I need changed?
Thanks again!
hmm I need to think about
hmm I need to think about this more, but I'm thinking the order of rule types firing may be what's interfering here.
Routing rules should re-fire any time the Assigned to field changes to "--[auto]--" (not sure about owner fields I've never had those go through routing rules) .
- Matt
Thanks, let me know if you
Thanks, let me know if you need more info as I am banging my head... I did apply the fix where it auto assigns Owned by to the Assigned persons queue, but don't believe that is interfering here as I currently am the assigned and the owned by on my test incident and it is not changing from that. It does however open the call and sets the closed code successfully, so I am baffled. I even moved those 2 portions of the rule to the top of the list to ensure it wasn't just halting on those.
What other rules are firing on the same incident update?
What other rules are firing on the same incident update?
Mike Clemson, Systems Engineer
Intuitive Technology Group -- Symantec Platinum Partner
okay, I feel like a newbie
okay, I feel like a newbie now. You got me to actually check the rules firing and come to find out, the incident rule was not really firing. However the mailbox rule was firing changing the status instead. When I removed that portion of the mailbox rule, the incident rule started working beautifully! Thank you for helping to walk me through this one!
No problem
You should be able to get the two rules to coexist by making sure none are terminal. Of course, I design mine so that not being terminal is okay, so if you have any bad logic in separate rules, you could run into issues.
Mike Clemson, Systems Engineer
Intuitive Technology Group -- Symantec Platinum Partner
The rule was not actually
The rule was not actually firing because another rule was interfering. Thank you for your guidance.
Would you like to reply?
Login or Register to post your comment.