This idea assumes that these others have been taken into account.

• Improve Search Options of IT Assets - Improvement #1 - Add denial of first conditional
• Improve Search Options of IT Assets - Improvement #2 - Add associative property explicitly

This is the idea.

It is simple and powerful new feature based on Improvement #1 and Improvement #2. It would allow make queries like this one.

In other words:

Computers with processor "Intel Core i5" and operating system "Microsoft Windows XP" or with processor "Intel Core i3" and operating system "Microsoft Windows 7" with a monitor Dell or HP with a size between 17 and 23 inches and HDMI connector and a printer USB which doesn't have network connection properties.

Does anybody else like this idea? ;)

Best regards,

If a user moves between different entities, he or she has permissions in those entities, if he or she sends an incident or request from an entity where he or she is not physically present at the time, the technician, supervisor or administrator does not have the option to Change the entity to which that incident or request belongs.

Dear Community, we are facing a issue with email notification regarding inclusion of images within the html notification.

Hi,

The idea is to make possible the activation of a captcha on the login page of GLPI.

Use an existing library (example, google recaptcha with setting the SiteKey in glpi configuration) or internal development glpi.

Regards,

We often log tickets and assign them to suppliers.

The supplier will inform me in writing what tasks were done and we transcribe this into our ticket. This means the task author is myself and not the supplier.

If we could have the task by option be expended to groups and suppliers we can clearly see what tasks are done by whom and who's time is used to complete that task.

Collect all the plugins official and unofficial of the GLPI and Show into the Plugin option avoiding search, research, upload by ftp/scp, change the permissions, put in the right folder, install and enable the "plugins", test and pray.... it's just better see what plugins exist and is more easy just Select, install and Enable plugins proved and aproved by the community. Even put in another option the integrations with another apps like Fusion Inventory, OcsInventory NG, Process Maker, Shinken, Zabbix, Nagios, Puppet etc... What do you think Comrades?

There are several limitations in GLPI 10 regarding cable & socket management:

1. You cannot define sockets with both front and rear contacts (this is required by patch panels)
2. Impact analysis does not consider cables (it considers connections only)
3. PDU plugs cannot be connected to assets (computers, network devices, etc)
4. Lines cannot be connect

So here is my proposal:

1. Sockets always have front & rear ports
2. Currently connections can only be established between
   • Network ports
   • USB devices and computers
     This needs to be expanded to allow
   • Network ports to socket (specifying if rear or front port is used)
   • Lines to network ports & sockets
   • Socket to socket (this is the case of connecting patch panels with rooms)
   • PDU plug to asset
   • PDU plug to PDU plug (to connect a power rail to a UPS plug)
3. Cables should be optional attributes of a connection (for those having numbered cables)
4. Impact analysis should show socket names, port numbers, and cable names (probably when clicking the connection line)

This can be done by other tools (such as netbox), but having it integrated in GLPI would be superb.

Also reported in forum https://forum.glpi-project.org/viewtopic.php?id=292630

Hello dear friends.
Many thanks to you for the development and improvement of the GLPI.

GLPI provides very convenient templates for solution and comments in tickets.

It is very convenient and simplifies and speeds up the work with tickets.
But it is very inconvenient that the template functions are not provided for sending a validation request.

It would be nice if you could add the ability to use templates for validation requests similar to follow-up or ticket solutions.
It would also be convenient if you could specify a specific approver for each validation request template.
We, as well as all GLPI users, would be very grateful if you could implement this template function in a validation request.