Thanks JD for your kind response. Please could you elaborate on your first approach to achieve it via AL.
Escalation can be created for it but suppose my escalation run every mid night then the incidents raised after mid night will be missed during calculation Also the motive of business is too just prioritize the aged incidents first of all by catching them in the overview console table only so that proactively it can be managed. On 05-Feb-2018 6:36 PM, "JD Hood" <hood...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi AA, > > Off the top of my head, you are looking at either adding a "Refresh Aging" > button on the console and/or firing an active link on Window Open/Display > to trigger the stack of workflow needed to re-calculate the field/column on > each Incident record and then refresh the table at the end. The workflow > has great potential to be ugly and costly. I would probably suggest using > the incident table qual so the workflow only updates the tickets that the > user needs to see to keep performance hit as low as possible for the > real-time update. Better hope they don't have a ton of tickets open... > -VS- > Run an escalation once per day to update the number of days "aging" on > open tickets only. If for some reason they need to know a more granular > amount of time (hours? minutes? How much do they micro-manage?), then you > are either going to run the escalation more often or do something like the > above option. Then the value would be available for display in the incident > table on the console -and- for reporting. I'm not sure what the objection > is to precluding escalations, but I have a feeling they've encountered or > built a particularly bad one in the past and now feel all escalations are > risky. Which is silly. > -VS- > Just display the Submit-Date field on the Incident table and highlight > tickets open more than 5 days (or whatever). Or they could just see the > submit date and do the easy math in their head. > > Good luck with it! > -JDHood > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:25 AM, Abhishek2019 <abhi.masc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> Yes it should be. >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://ars-action-request-system.1.n7.nabble.com/ >> -- >> ARSList mailing list >> ARSList@arslist.org >> https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist >> > > > -- > ARSList mailing list > ARSList@arslist.org > https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist > >
-- ARSList mailing list ARSList@arslist.org https://mailman.rrr.se/cgi/listinfo/arslist
