Active directory integration

[c-wex]

When i look at your screendump the priority field seems greyed out / read only ?

[c-wex]

Hmm it is not read only i see that mine looks that way too. I have solved my missing field problem. One of my templates must have had a defect. I deleted all custom templates and put the uder in default ... then i got the priority choices back ... bugbugbugbug

[Varun Shoor]

Thats not a bug, you need to make sure your priorities are assigned to your new template groups under the Tickets section in Admin CP.

Regards,

Varun Shoor

[c-wex]

oops.

I guess you are right.

So Varun ... the magic question ... since you are here ;-) When do you think we will have 3.00.26 + stable ?

[Varun Shoor]

I am working on it, we are testing the new winapp and once we are assured that it has nothing show stopper (a lot of the inners changed) then we will put it out for you guys to test it.

Btw, feel free to email me at varun AT kayako.com in case of any queries, you dont need to wait for me to come to forums.

Regards,

Varun Shoor

[c-wex]

Hehe ... I would rather sit and wait for the new release than bother you on the email :-)

I have an urgent need of this product, so i just wish to get a bug free ed.

[Varun Shoor]

Gotcha, v3.00.13 is quite stable except for some bugs most of which are already fixed in the CVS build.

Regards,

varun Shoor

[c-wex]

Yep I know.

One really important thing for me is that templates beeing assigned to different usergroups works with no hassle since i wan't to use the knowledgebase for information that might not concern everyone. It is not to good right now, as you can just enter the templategroup you want to see as a querystring.

[Hybrid]

Sounds to be quite a few bugs in this!

Think i'm gonna have a couple more attempts then probs just end up ditching it!!

Waste of time if nothing is gonna work. I dont want to waste any more time and money on this.

If anyone else can think of anything then please let me know lol.

Im in schmidman's mood here and i just wanna bang mi head off the desk numerous times!!

[Varun Shoor]

You can password protect a template group under its settings too.

Regards,

Varun Shoor

[Varun Shoor]

Originally Posted by Hybrid

Sounds to be quite a few bugs in this!

Think i'm gonna have a couple more attempts then probs just end up ditching it!!

Waste of time if nothing is gonna work. I dont want to waste any more time and money on this.

If anyone else can think of anything then please let me know lol.

Im in schmidman's mood here and i just wanna bang mi head off the desk numerous times!!

I checked the line 97 and see that it is related to proxyAddresses:

foreach ($_results[0]["proxyaddresses"] as $key=>$val)

Line 76 loads up different fields which also includes proxyaddresses:

$_ldapresults = ldap_search($_connection, $_loginshare["adbasedn"], "(&(samaccountname=" . trim(preg_replace( "/[^a-zA-Z0-9\-\_@\.]/", "" , $username)) . "))", array("samaccountname", "proxyAddresses", "mail", "distinguishedname", "displayName"), 0, 0, 10);

What happens if you remove the , "proxyAddresses" from line 76? does the error go away?

eSupport/SupportSuite uses proxyAddresses to fetch a list of emails for the given user.

Regards,

Varun Shoor

[Hybrid]

How do i go about doing this?

The page is encoded and i cant see the source code its using? :/

[c-wex]

Originally Posted by Varun [K]

You can password protect a template group under its settings too.

Regards,

Varun Shoor

Yes i know ... havent tried it ... i want to use one login only, and i expect that password protection is telling the user to "log in" again ?

[Varun Shoor]

Originally Posted by Hybrid

How do i go about doing this?

The page is encoded and i cant see the source code its using? :/

You can email me at varun AT kayako.com for the unencoded version.

Regards,

Varun Shoor

[Varun Shoor]

Originally Posted by c-wex

Yes i know ... havent tried it ... i want to use one login only, and i expect that password protection is telling the user to "log in" again ?

Kind Of, What other ideas do you have? The current implementation is the best approach we could think of.

Regards,

Varun Shoor