erush

My feedback

  1. 7 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SMA (K1000) » UX  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    erush commented  · 

    Yes, what I'm asking for is more of a click + hover function. Click to bring out a hover menu, and then return to hidden once you've clicked where to nav to or clicked off somewhere else on page.

    Each Icon could have their own hover menu just for their section expanded to the right of the icon, similar to dropdown menus hover hierarchy.
    OR one click to unhide the menu then hovering would change section context which clicking a section would normally do, and then menu would re-hide once you've clicked where to nav to or clicked off somewhere else on page.

    Hover alone is ok too, i just think a click would make it intentional to bring out a menu.

    If hover not possible, click without expanding would be a nice have too. I just feel it would not be as functional since you wouldn't be able to nav everywhere.

    erush shared this idea  · 
  2. 3 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SDA (K2000) » New Features  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Thank you for these feature requests!

    These sound very interesting. The retention concept for drivers that aren’t needed sounds great.
    We will review these further and determine their place within our product backlog.

    erush shared this idea  · 
  3. 33 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  4 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Scripting  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush supported this idea  · 
  4. 4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Service Desk  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush shared this idea  · 
  5. 5 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Security  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush supported this idea  · 
  6. 26 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » General Feedback  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    erush commented  · 
  7. 9 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SMA (K1000) » Service Desk  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    erush commented  · 
  8. 102 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Security  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    erush commented  · 

    I fell in this boat. I thought that was what Authentication Settings section had a sort order for, but it's not actually checking access role on authentication at all. It's only setting access on account creation (first login or an import). After that it is up to you to manually change in a user account.

    This seems like a bug to me.

    This is sorely needed as most customers will manage admins using LDAP groups, as that is how it's done with most other products.

    Kind of sad that this request has been around since 2011, as Daniel said feature seems taken for granted. There should at least be a Note made in the documentation stating that roles are only set at time of account creation in the system. That in order to change it must be done manually.

  9. 86 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    11 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Service Desk  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    This is under consideration but not planned for the next release. Please continue voting if you’d like to see this feature prioritized for a future release

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    erush commented  · 

    Yes proxyAddresses needs to be evaluated as it would be for the same user but come from different addresses.

    If this can be done with a ticket rule as billy said, I'd like to know how.

  10. 41 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Asset Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    erush commented  · 

    Yes please, "Application Control" needs this badly.

    I wanted to add this request myself, just haven't gotten around to it.

    "Disallowed programs script", has been depreciated. But you could set a label to do this against. Need same functionality in application control.

  11. 51 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  6 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » UX  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    erush commented  · 

    Yes this is needed in both places. Machine list as either a similar Machine Action drop down or from the Choose Action drop down. And definitely in the Machine details page as well. As Force Inventory for example is handy in both places.

    Please however, make it optional what scripts are in the action menu. Like a checkbox in the script to enable it for this purpose. So that there isn't a huge list of stuff that would never need to be run this way.

  12. 4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  SDA (K2000) » Feature Enhancements  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush shared this idea  · 
  13. 69 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  6 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Organizations  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush supported this idea  · 
  14. 42 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  4 comments  ·  SMA (K1000) » Scripting  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    erush supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base