Re: Multi attribute email notification, posted by mike cianci on Wed Dec 3 22:57:13 2008
|
Your suggestion worked GREAT (like always)
| Stefan Ritt wrote: |
|
| mike cianci wrote: |
|
What I would like to do is:
If attribute "A" and attribute "B" - send email to person #1
If attribute "A" and attribute "C" - send email to person #2
(I apologize if this in the documentation. I have looked at the "Email" section and have either missed it or don't understand it. Thank you for the help)
|
This is not implemented, you only can test on a single attribute. There might be a possibility with conditional attributes, but I have never tried this out.
|
|
Re: Multi attribute email notification, posted by John Rouillard on Sun Jan 11 00:02:34 2009
|
| mike cianci wrote: |
|
Your suggestion worked GREAT (like always)
|
Could you post an example of what you used? |
|
Re: Multi attribute email notification, posted by mike cianci on Mon Feb 9 07:58:46 2009
|
| John Rouillard wrote: |
|
| mike cianci wrote: |
|
Your suggestion worked GREAT (like always)
|
Could you post an example of what you used?
|
Sorry, it took me so long to respond. I didn't notice your request.
Attributes = Instrument, Notify Lead Tech
Options Instrument = Olympus, Beckman
Options Notify Lead Tech = Yes{a}, No {b}
{a}Email Instrument Olympus = John@lab.net (i.e. if it is "Yes" and "Olympus" - John gets an email)
{a}Email Instrument Beckman = Mary@lab.net (i.e. if it is "Yes" and "Beckman" - Mary gets an email) |
|
Re: Multi attribute email notification, posted by mike cianci on Mon Feb 9 07:58:58 2009
|
| John Rouillard wrote: |
|
| mike cianci wrote: |
|
Your suggestion worked GREAT (like always)
|
Could you post an example of what you used?
|
Sorry, it took me so long to respond. I didn't notice your request.
Attributes = Instrument, Notify Lead Tech
Options Instrument = Olympus, Beckman
Options Notify Lead Tech = Yes{a}, No {b}
{a}Email Instrument Olympus = John@lab.net (i.e. if it is "Yes" and "Olympus" - John gets an email)
{a}Email Instrument Beckman = Mary@lab.net (i.e. if it is "Yes" and "Beckman" - Mary gets an email) |
Comment on: Alphabetize Quick Option filter, posted by David Pilgram on Mon Aug 10 21:07:15 2009
|
(For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
I like this new feature, BUT
I happen to have two Options: Options System, and Options Status.
System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to.
Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
this is made up)
Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
where the natural order here is chronological.
Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
Sort attribute Options Status = 1
which would then NOT sort Options System. If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options. |
|
Re: Comment on: Alphabetize Quick Option filter, posted by David Pilgram on Mon Aug 10 21:19:50 2009
|
I've just noticed that it has also sorted another Option, which are selected as radio buttons. Again, this is a
list which has a natural - again, in this case, chronological - order.
Because of this, I'm going to have to turn off this feature as it is on my system. I hope something can be sorted
on this.
> (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
>
> I like this new feature, BUT
>
> I happen to have two Options: Options System, and Options Status.
>
> System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to.
> Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> this is made up)
>
> Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
>
> where the natural order here is chronological.
>
> Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
>
> Sort attribute Options Status = 1
>
> which would then NOT sort Options System. If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options. |
|
Re: Comment on: Alphabetize Quick Option filter, posted by Stefan Ritt on Tue Aug 11 08:38:56 2009
|
Ok, that makes sense, so I changed it to
Sort Attribute Options Status = 1
as you suggested.
> (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
>
> I like this new feature, BUT
>
> I happen to have two Options: Options System, and Options Status.
>
> System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to.
> Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> this is made up)
>
> Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
>
> where the natural order here is chronological.
>
> Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
>
> Sort attribute Options Status = 1
>
> which would then NOT sort Options System. If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options. |
|
Re: Comment on: Alphabetize Quick Option filter, posted by David Pilgram on Tue Aug 11 10:07:08 2009
|
Thanks Stefan! Works great.
> Ok, that makes sense, so I changed it to
>
> Sort Attribute Options Status = 1
>
> as you suggested.
>
> > (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> >
> > I like this new feature, BUT
> >
> > I happen to have two Options: Options System, and Options Status.
> >
> > System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to.
> > Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> > sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> > this is made up)
> >
> > Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> >
> > where the natural order here is chronological.
> >
> > Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> >
> > Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> >
> > which would then NOT sort Options System. If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> > the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options. |
|