1 of 1 people found this helpful
I think you will find that BMC came up with the 1 attachment idea ....
Assuming you are talking about Work Info attachments.
As this is a standalone product, I am guessing to limit the sizing one attachment was decided on. Plus there is a lot of intermediate workflow/forms used to do the pushing and updating.
It may seem like an easy task to add extra attachment, which in theory is not that difficult as the Attachment Pools are already there, but there is the interface forms, workflow etc to take into consideration.
Easiest way is to add multiple WI entries, but if this is not ideal a lot of logging to figure out the the way it works will be required.
Thanks for the answer. Yeah i gathered that there would be alot of workflow that would need to be updated inorder to allow for the functionality of 4 attachments being added to a WorkInfo. I was hoping that there would be a easy answer for this requirement, however the more I look at it it seems that we are going to have to do some customization.
As soon as I have it working on our side then I will update everyone, just in case someone else is looking for a challenge as well.
Did anyone ever get an answer on this?
I am facing the same issues!!
Well there is no simple "Just click here" solution for this. I did raise this with BMC themselves and they were going to make a note of it / add it as a enhancement to future releases of SRM.
For now, we have edited some of the OOTB workflow to accomodate our request and we have held back the rollout of SRM 2.2 until a future release.
The design of attachments in SRM 2.2 has been changed from the original solution in ITSM 7.0.03, in that from the Incident Console the system references back to the SRM:Work Info table to display the attachments.
However, our decision to hold back was not based just on the attachments, but also on the fact that the "Add to Cart' functionality cannot be hidden entirely without the modification of some Java code.
Thanks for the prompt response!
It seems BMC never really thought this through before release!
I think i will have a play around with a few things in order to see what i can do...chances are i will give up and make an excuse of sorts to the users!
I think you will find that it is by design limitation with the backend and interface forms, not that they did not think it through.
It can be done by customizations, but these are not straight forward.
I believe that performance was another consideration.