Good afternoon! If a process number is specified when writing a letter, box pulls the letter to the specified process, and this is great. But if the process is deleted at the same time, the letter is still attached to it. Why? The process is deleted, that is, it does not exist for the user. Please fix this
Good afternoon! If a process number is specified when writing a letter, box pulls the letter to the specified process, and this is great. But if the process is deleted at the same time, the letter is still attached to it. Why? The process is deleted, that is, it does not exist for the user. Please fix this
Hello, when writing a letter, you indicate the specific number of the process where it should be tightened. Why, in this case, the system should not fulfill your legitimate desire to pull the letter into the specified process (whatever state it is in)?
Hello, when writing a letter, you indicate the specific number of the process where it should be tightened. Why, in this case, the system should not fulfill your legitimate desire to pull the letter into the specified process (whatever state it is in)?
Bodyako Dmitry Employee wrote: Hello, when writing a letter, you indicate the specific number of the process where it should be tightened. Why, in this case, the system should not fulfill your legitimate desire to pull the letter into the specified process (whatever state it is in)?
Dmitry, the problem is that the company participates in many tenders, and often the number in the letter is not the process number, but the tender number. The link itself suits and it is convenient, but we have added not linking with closed processes and, again, we have practically closed the problem of linking by tender number, but Box continues to link with remote processes. Still, from my point of view, it's not ok.
[quote]
Bodyako Dmitry Employee wrote:
Hello, when writing a letter, you indicate the specific number of the process where it should be tightened. Why, in this case, the system should not fulfill your legitimate desire to pull the letter into the specified process (whatever state it is in)?
[/quote]
Dmitry, the problem is that the company participates in many tenders, and often the number in the letter is not the process number, but the tender number.
The link itself suits and it is convenient, but we have added not linking with closed processes and, again, we have practically closed the problem of linking by tender number, but Box continues to link with remote processes. Still, from my point of view, it's not ok.
[quote]
Bodyako Dmitry Employee wrote:
Please give a link to the process and the event that tied it up - I'll see what can be done
[/quote]
https://crm.nspace.com.ua/admin/customorder/issue/14923/edit/ process, the last event in the comments was pulled into the already deleted
Changed the setting "Do not add comments to closed processes when parsing emails" to "Do not add comments to closed or remote processes when parsing emails". It is enabled on your project.
Changed the setting "Do not add comments to closed processes when parsing emails" to "Do not add comments to closed or remote processes when parsing emails". It is enabled on your project.
Bodyako Dmitry Employee wrote: Changed the setting "Do not add comments to closed processes when parsing emails" to "Do not add comments to closed or remote processes when parsing emails". It is enabled on your project.
Thank you so much
[quote]
Bodyako Dmitry Employee wrote:
Changed the setting "Do not add comments to closed processes when parsing emails" to "Do not add comments to closed or remote processes when parsing emails". It is enabled on your project.
[/quote]
Thank you so much
Bodyako Dmitry Employee wrote: maybe it's easier to just update the old box?)
I would be in favor, but the client has not yet made such a decision (unfortunately
[quote]
Bodyako Dmitry Employee wrote:
maybe it's easier to just update the old box?)
[/quote]
I would be in favor, but the client has not yet made such a decision (unfortunately
I don't see any point in wasting resources maintaining/developing older versions of OneBox when there are newer ones. Those. in your case, the client will have the improvement when it is updated to mvp.
I don't see any point in wasting resources maintaining/developing older versions of OneBox when there are newer ones. Those. in your case, the client will have the improvement when it is updated to mvp.
Bodyako Dmitry Employee wrote: I don't see any point in wasting resources maintaining/developing older versions of OneBox when there are newer ones. Those. in your case, the client will have the improvement when it is updated to mvp.
hmm .. I agree with this, but why didn’t you massively transfer everyone to the new version and at the same time continue to maintain two versions, the question is for you
[quote]
Bodyako Dmitry Employee wrote:
I don't see any point in wasting resources maintaining/developing older versions of OneBox when there are newer ones. Those. in your case, the client will have the improvement when it is updated to mvp.
[/quote]
hmm .. I agree with this, but why didn’t you massively transfer everyone to the new version and at the same time continue to maintain two versions, the question is for you
How, without the consent of the client, should I transfer his box to a new version? We translate all those who wish - it is enough to indicate your desire on the form. What is the problem?
How, without the consent of the client, should I transfer his box to a new version? We translate all those who wish - it is enough to indicate your desire on the form. What is the problem?
Please join the conversation. If you have something to say - please write a comment. You will need a mobile phone and an SMS code for identification to enter.
Log in and comment
Donate
You don't have enough funds in your account Top up