In our tenant, I have a rule called “Update Ticket” which is working well.
But as part of that rule I would like to somehow get it to populate a ticket UDF called Note Added By with a specific phrase called “MSP Integrations”.
This is so that I can set a workflow rule to only fire should a note be added by the MSP API.
Can you provide a screenshot of the “Update” action you’re using? I’d like to see the specific action-type as well as the name of the variable (if there is one) being stored with the output.
Alternatively, you can provide the URL to an example email from your history and I can look at it there. If you do that, I’ll redact sensitive info and paste a screenshot here for others.
So I hoped that the update would keep adding something like MSP into a UDF, then I would have a workflow that ran if the condition matched a UDF with MSP in it.
This is to fix an issue where tickets are reopening due to the update condition saying waiting customer so I wanted to be a bit more specific.
If the issue is that replies are reopening tickets, why not tick the “Filter tickets” box and create the filter to only work if the ticket is NOT in a completed status?
The issue is due to a workflow firing on a note added by anyone not just a customer and changing the status to customer note added. This is primarily happening when an internal monitoring system adds a note so I have a work around in place now but im just interested if i can get my original request to work.
Here is a process I have used with success. Autotask supports a note field named Note Type and you can define new note types under Application-Wide Features.
I typically create a note type named Advanced Workflow Note and use this type for all notes I have Email2AT create. I also flag it as an internal note because this allows you to filter these notes in or out of view when working in the ticket.
Now when you are creating Autotask workflow rules you can test the Note Type to decide if a WFR should or should not fire for your Advanced Workflow Notes as show here: