Uploaded image for project: 'Jira Service Management Cloud'
  1. Jira Service Management Cloud
  2. JSDCLOUD-9420

Ability to have a table in the Customer portal

XMLWordPrintable

    • 1

    • Our product teams collect and evaluate feedback from a number of different sources. To learn more about how we use customer feedback in the planning process, check out our new feature policy.

      Workaround via JSM Forms

      You can now add tables with fields via the JSM Forms features (previously called ProForma).

      To build a form goto Project Settings > Forms

       

      Issue Summary

      It will be nice to have a table in the customer portal so the customer can enter data into a table to show their dependencies.

      For example:

      Hostname     Source IP address     Destination IP
      ABC               193.233.12.15             192.200.1.2
      XYZ               193.233.12.45.            192.200.1.3

            [JSDCLOUD-9420] Ability to have a table in the Customer portal

            Javidan Amiraliyev added a comment -

            When will this be implemented in Data Center?

            Javidan Amiraliyev added a comment - When will this be implemented in Data Center?

            Carol Tsai added a comment -

            Hi Jira service desk product team, 

            Thanks for Fariba for helping me creating this ticket. 

             

            Table function will be really helpful for us and actually the need for this happens nearly every day.

            We've created different request types for our  customers to log requests.

             

            However, a lot of times, our customers need to log lots of requests with the same request type at the same time.

            So they tend to log just one ticket to save time.

            However, as Fariba writes in the issue summary, if our customers log all their request in one ticket, 

            we are not sure which source should be relate to which destination when there are multiple sources and destinations. 

             

            Moreover, we've created request types for our customers to build servers. 

            Our customers may want to build 2 or more servers w/ different specs in one ticket. 

            And it will cause some confusion since in the current custom fields, there's no option to separate and compare data in table form. 

            As a consequence, if the customers type in different spec in one field, we don't know what spec is for which server. 

             

            To sum up, I suggest to enable table function in the custom field.

            Thanks. 

             

             

            Carol Tsai added a comment - Hi Jira service desk product team,  Thanks for Fariba for helping me creating this ticket.    Table function will be really helpful for us and actually the need for this happens nearly every day. We've created different request types for our  customers to log requests.   However, a lot of times, our customers need to log lots of requests with the same request type at the same time. So they tend to log just one ticket to save time. However, as Fariba writes in the issue summary, if our customers log all their request in one ticket,  we are not sure which source should be relate to which destination when there are multiple sources and destinations.    Moreover, we've created request types for our customers to build servers.  Our customers may want to build 2 or more servers w/ different specs in one ticket.  And it will cause some confusion since in the current custom fields, there's no option to separate and compare data in table form.  As a consequence, if the customers type in different spec in one field, we don't know what spec is for which server.    To sum up, I suggest to enable table function in the custom field. Thanks.     

              3594564a659e Simon Herd (Inactive)
              646205eda384 Fariba
              Votes:
              6 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              15 Start watching this issue

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: