Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature Request : Auto Close Ticket in case of no reply for x days #1689

Closed
supportreq opened this issue Jan 20, 2015 · 24 comments
Closed

Feature Request : Auto Close Ticket in case of no reply for x days #1689

supportreq opened this issue Jan 20, 2015 · 24 comments

Comments

@supportreq
Copy link

This feature is very common for any ticket management system, where a ticket can be auto closed in case there is no reply from the client for x days.. the days can be defined based on the department or help topic..

@mckaygerhard
Copy link

this are the stack fature of the remedy software, this enhancement are one of the most wanted!!!

i hope will not be implemented with cron setup, or os touch... (sure not, due osticket seems run in mocosoft guindows)

@supportreq
Copy link
Author

@greezybacon any plans to implement this soon

@adriencarbonne
Copy link

+1

@supportreq
Copy link
Author

@greezybacon @protich can we use the Ticket Filter option for this? I didn't find a field of ticket creation date in the ticket filter..

Please advice..

@ntozier
Copy link
Contributor

ntozier commented Jul 21, 2015

Q: can we use the Ticket Filter option for this?
A: Not at this time.

There is a mod on the forums discussing how to do this though.
http://osticket.com/forum/discussion/85900/auto-close-resolved-tickets-after-3-days

@amsut
Copy link

amsut commented Aug 24, 2015

+1 for this.

@mohitbhatia1994
Copy link

+1

@mckaygerhard
Copy link

+1

umm the same code for delayed ticket s can be used for closed in "x" days?

i mean, for own purposes wheantime developer push to oficial osticket code!

please how can be made that with this piece of code (delayed tickets part)

@zener05
Copy link

zener05 commented Oct 16, 2015

+1

1 similar comment
@wintstar
Copy link

+1

@jdelhome3578
Copy link
Contributor

#2152 PR is waiting for someone to review

@Pablohn26
Copy link

Pablohn26 commented Jan 18, 2017

+1
I am not sure if this PR provides it (I do not have v1.10)

@kest874
Copy link
Contributor

kest874 commented Jan 18, 2017

@Pablohn26 yes, the PR works, we use it here. However I'm on 1.10

@mckaygerhard
Copy link

As @Pablohn26 said, me not have 1.10, i'm on 1.9 too why so many issues from 1.9 request are not attended?

@kest874
Copy link
Contributor

kest874 commented Jan 18, 2017

Because 1.10 is final and current.

@mckaygerhard
Copy link

was not final when this issue was opened! more than a year to have a important feature!!!!

@mckaygerhard
Copy link

many important production sites still have 1.9 due better "mejor diablo conocido que nuevo por conocer"

reselers and vendors do not use software without well-knowed and well-tested and i know that 1.9 are well-knowed and -well-tested

the 1.10 are good for now when are well tested and the many issues in the github will close

@jdelhome3578
Copy link
Contributor

@Pablohn26 @mckaygerhard what is wrong with #2152? It is written for 1.9.x and works fine.

@jdelhome3578
Copy link
Contributor

@kest874 are you using #3450?

@mckaygerhard
Copy link

@jdelhome3578 i dont see this in 1.9.x brand, l must patch myselft my osticket installation with many usefully patches over the forum and network, due here seems users request usefully features are not allowed, i taking about simple and few lines patch's like open attached files into popup window very necesary and still pending

@ntozier
Copy link
Contributor

ntozier commented Jan 19, 2017

I'm not sure why it is so hard to understand that new features are not back ported to old versions.

@mckaygerhard
Copy link

i'm not sure why its so hard to understand that need features are really little hacks NEED in current stable used versions, the patch for "open in new window" are not so hard to include that time when was proposed! a long long time ago...

in any case, we have a job that we dont have the luxury to take the risk to take unknow newer versions if are not well knowed until are very well tested

@kest874
Copy link
Contributor

kest874 commented Jan 19, 2017

@jdelhome3578 yes using #3450 @mckaygerhard use #2152

@mckaygerhard
Copy link

mckaygerhard commented Jan 19, 2017

thanks @kest874 i right now patched the testing environment... seems need some tricks to get work, i'll review and made some hacks and report feedback here

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests