The source is not filled in by UTM tags
Good afternoon.
The process for the example https://crm.ohrana.ua/admin/customorder/zakaz-klienta/373190/edit/, when you switch to In work, the action starts the procedure https://crm.ohrana.ua/admin/shop/workflow/ 16/procedure/372/?status=0 , https://prnt.sc/10i0xbm . In the procedure, the source is assigned from UTM tags, while the source is not assigned https://prnt.sc/10i0yzw , but if you start the procedure manually https://prnt.sc/10i0v3v everything is fine https://prnt.sc/10i10cm. A number of actions have been specially added to the procedure so that it can be seen from the history that when you go to the In operation stage, the procedure works out. What could be the reason?
Original question is available on version: ru
The process for the example https://crm.ohrana.ua/admin/customorder/zakaz-klienta/373190/edit/, when you switch to In work, the action starts the procedure https://crm.ohrana.ua/admin/shop/workflow/ 16/procedure/372/?status=0 , https://prnt.sc/10i0xbm . In the procedure, the source is assigned from UTM tags, while the source is not assigned https://prnt.sc/10i0yzw , but if you start the procedure manually https://prnt.sc/10i0v3v everything is fine https://prnt.sc/10i10cm. A number of actions have been specially added to the procedure so that it can be seen from the history that when you go to the In operation stage, the procedure works out. What could be the reason?
Answers:
It turns out that the problem is that the Add UTM tags action based on the incoming call of the process client (Binotel Call Tracking/Ringostat) pulls the value from the client card https://prnt.sc/10jj4dr, and after that the action Automatically detect task source based on utm - does not have time to assign a source by UTM. That is, now only the first action is triggered on the first click, and the second - only on the second click. Please help me decide. Are there options?
12.03.2021, 10:11
Original comment available on version: ru
Shatokhina Irina wrote:
It turns out that the problem is that the Add UTM tags action based on the incoming call of the process client (Binotel Call Tracking/Ringostat) pulls the value from the client card https://prnt.sc/10jj4dr, and after that the action Automatically detect task source based on utm - does not have time to assign a source by UTM. That is, now only the first action is triggered on the first click, and the second - only on the second click. Please help me decide. Are there options?
at the time of the start of activity 2 there are no labels in the process yet
so you need to separate these stages
12.03.2021, 15:38
Original comment available on version: ru
Ustimenko Igor
OneBox CTO wrote:
at the time of the start of activity 2 there are no labels in the process yet
The fact is that after working out the Add UTM tags action based on the incoming call from the client, we copy them to the additional fields https://prnt.sc/10jrmj2 and if you look at the history https://crm.ohrana.ua/admin/customorder/ zakaz-klienta/386388/history/ then after the first processing of the action https://prnt.sc/10jrkz0 additional fields are already filled, that is, the UTM of the process is already there, but the action to assign a source by UTM tags does not work. Maybe this can be fixed?
We cannot distinguish between these actions, since we receive UTM from the call after the end of the conversation
12.03.2021, 17:13
Original comment available on version: ru
Shatokhina Irina wrote:
Ustimenko Igor
OneBox CTO wrote:
at the time of the start of activity 2 there are no labels in the process yet
The fact is that after working out the Add UTM-tags action based on the incoming call of the client, we copy them to the additional fields and if you look at the history https://crm.ohrana.ua/admin/customorder/zakaz -klienta/386388/history/ then after the first processing of the action, additional fields are already filled, that is, the UTM of the process is already there, but the action to assign a source by UTM tags does not work. Maybe this can be fixed?
We cannot distinguish between these actions, since we receive UTM from the call after the end of the conversation
you will have to separate them, since the fact that they are filled up to does not mean that they are already in the BASE
16.03.2021, 07:41
Original comment available on version: ru
Good afternoon. Igor, is it possible to solve this on the side of boxing? We, as users, do everything right. We need to do this consistently. It is not right that we should invent crutches to solve the problem. Suggest a healthy solution. After all, you can make a check in action so that the next action does not start until the previous one is completely executed.
16.03.2021, 11:01
Original comment available on version: ru
Ptashkin Sergey wrote:
Good afternoon. Igor, is it possible to solve this on the side of boxing? We, as users, do everything right. We need to do this consistently. It is not right that we should invent crutches to solve the problem. Suggest a healthy solution. After all, you can make a check in action so that the next action does not start until the previous one is completely executed.
no, we can't solve it on our side, since technically there is one transaction and there is no data yet.
To solve this, you need to change the architecture
17.03.2021, 14:41
Original comment available on version: ru
Okay, Igor. Tell me how to properly "Demarcate" We need to do this consistently. What should be done? Is it enough to place actions in different procedures? Or should there be a significant delay? How to do it right?
17.03.2021, 16:01
Original comment available on version: ru
Ptashkin Sergey wrote:
Okay, Igor. Tell me how to properly "Demarcate" We need to do this consistently. What should be done? Is it enough to place actions in different procedures? Or should there be a significant delay? How to do it right?
the launch of these actions must not be within the same transition
you can distinguish this, for example, by the duration of the stage and switching after 1 minute to another stage
18.03.2021, 14:18
Original comment available on version: ru
Igor, it seemed to me that nothing is impossible for you :)
Such a decision is extremely inconvenient. Let's approach the problem from the other side.
1. As far as I understand, the action "Add UTM tags based on an incoming call from the client of the process" is a fiction. since it pulls data not from the binotel but from the client's card. I checked that if the action is not launched, then this data is initially in the client card. If everything is correct, then:
2. "Automatically determine the source of the task based on utm" is easier to perform based on the client's utm tags, without copying them into the process. Can be modified as a checkbox (use yutm tags from the client card). Then you do not need to wait until something is copied somewhere
Such a decision is extremely inconvenient. Let's approach the problem from the other side.
1. As far as I understand, the action "Add UTM tags based on an incoming call from the client of the process" is a fiction. since it pulls data not from the binotel but from the client's card. I checked that if the action is not launched, then this data is initially in the client card. If everything is correct, then:
2. "Automatically determine the source of the task based on utm" is easier to perform based on the client's utm tags, without copying them into the process. Can be modified as a checkbox (use yutm tags from the client card). Then you do not need to wait until something is copied somewhere
19.03.2021, 18:34
Original comment available on version: ru
Can be modified as a checkbox (use yutm tags from the client card). Then you do not need to wait until something is copied somewhere
Hurry up. Yutm tags can also be in the process, for example, received from the site. If you make a revision, then "If there are no UTM tags in the process, take tags from the client's card"
21.03.2021, 19:30
Original comment available on version: ru
Ptashkin Sergey wrote:
1. As far as I understand, the action "Add UTM tags based on an incoming call from the client of the process" is a fiction. since it pulls data not from the binotel but from the client's card. I checked that if the action is not launched, then this data is initially in the client card. If everything is correct, then:
no, not true, data from an event that arrives from the binotel
Ptashkin Sergey wrote:
2. "Automatically determine the source of the task based on utm" is easier to perform based on the client's utm tags, without copying them into the process. Can be modified as a checkbox (use yutm tags from the client card). Then you do not need to wait until something is copied somewhere
if this solves your problem, then adding a tick is not a problem
2h
24.03.2021, 17:16
Original comment available on version: ru
Igor, please send an invoice
Please indicate if the following is included in the assessment:
Ptashkin Sergey wrote:
Hurry up. Yutm tags can also be in the process, for example, received from the site. If you make a revision, then "If there are no UTM tags in the process, take tags from the client's card"
Please indicate if the following is included in the assessment:
Ptashkin Sergey wrote:
Hurry up. Yutm tags can also be in the process, for example, received from the site. If you make a revision, then "If there are no UTM tags in the process, take tags from the client's card"
25.03.2021, 12:59
Original comment available on version: ru
"no, not true, data from an event that arrives from the binotel"
Danyne from the binotel first get into the client's card. And it doesn't need this action.
Example: Client https://crm.ohrana.ua/admin/shop/users/136293/
There was a single call from a client (call tracking)
In boxing, there is not a single client process. But the client card already contains information with yutm tags. I assume that they get there after pushing from the binotel. Correct me if wrong, but definitely not thanks to the action.
When we launch an action, yutm tags get into the process. Are you insisting that the action looks for binotel pushes and parses tags? Why, if they are in the client card?
Solution p2 suits me, but it is relevant after clarification of p1. Thank you.
Danyne from the binotel first get into the client's card. And it doesn't need this action.
Example: Client https://crm.ohrana.ua/admin/shop/users/136293/
There was a single call from a client (call tracking)
In boxing, there is not a single client process. But the client card already contains information with yutm tags. I assume that they get there after pushing from the binotel. Correct me if wrong, but definitely not thanks to the action.
When we launch an action, yutm tags get into the process. Are you insisting that the action looks for binotel pushes and parses tags? Why, if they are in the client card?
Solution p2 suits me, but it is relevant after clarification of p1. Thank you.
25.03.2021, 15:46
Original comment available on version: ru
Igor, please help.
I see that the problem is not only with labels, but, apparently, with all standard fields.
1 action - fill in the source
2 action - I copy the source in the additional field. The action does not work.
1 Action - get ytm tags
2 Action - I determine the source by yutm tags - the action does not work out /
It turns out that in order to get a yutm tag, determine the source and copy it to an additional field - I need to break this process into 3 separate stages
Since there is no such problem with additional fields, I am convinced that this bug can be fixed for standard fields as well.
I see that the problem is not only with labels, but, apparently, with all standard fields.
1 action - fill in the source
2 action - I copy the source in the additional field. The action does not work.
1 Action - get ytm tags
2 Action - I determine the source by yutm tags - the action does not work out /
It turns out that in order to get a yutm tag, determine the source and copy it to an additional field - I need to break this process into 3 separate stages
Since there is no such problem with additional fields, I am convinced that this bug can be fixed for standard fields as well.
30.03.2021, 10:39
Original comment available on version: ru
Ptashkin Sergey wrote:
Igor, please help.
I see that the problem is not only with labels, but, apparently, with all standard fields.
1 action - fill in the source
2 action - I copy the source in the additional field. The action does not work.
1 Action - get ytm tags
2 Action - I determine the source by yutm tags - the action does not work out /
It turns out that in order to get a yutm tag, determine the source and copy it to an additional field - I need to break this process into 3 separate stages
Since there is no such problem with additional fields, I am convinced that this bug can be fixed for standard fields as well.
unfortunately this is not an error, there is no such problem with additional fields because they are in a different table
and not in the main one with which it takes the base fields
30.03.2021, 15:54
Original comment available on version: ru
Igor, suggest a solution to the problem, please. Please rate if possible.
30.03.2021, 15:59
Original comment available on version: ru
Ptashkin Sergey wrote:
Igor, suggest a solution to the problem, please. Please rate if possible.
Your problem is solved purely by setting the separation of stages
and above I described how, just switch the stage in a minute and that's it
07.04.2021, 12:56
Original comment available on version: ru
Thanks Igor. This option is practically unrealizable. I need to perform this series of actions in several steps. In order to determine the source and copy it to the additional field, I need to divide it into 3 stages. At the same time, the employee will not wait three minutes for the order. This will greatly complicate the business process.
This problem with standard margins is sure to come up sideways in other places as well. Please, let's come up with the right solution, and let's not come up with a crutch.
This problem with standard margins is sure to come up sideways in other places as well. Please, let's come up with the right solution, and let's not come up with a crutch.
07.04.2021, 17:33
Original comment available on version: ru
Ptashkin Sergey wrote:
Thanks Igor. This option is practically unrealizable. I need to perform this series of actions in several stages. In order to determine the source and copy it to the additional field, I need to divide it into 3 stages. At the same time, the employee will not wait three minutes for the order. This will greatly complicate the business process.
This problem with standard margins is sure to come up sideways in other places as well. Please, let's come up with the right solution, and let's not come up with a crutch.
the right solution requires architectural changes that are already in the OS.
doing them in mvp is an investment of 100-150h
15.04.2021, 15:30
Original comment available on version: ru
Thanks Igor. The answer is clear. We will look for workarounds and wait for OS
19.04.2021, 13:52
Original comment available on version: ru
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
Copyright © OneBox 2024
