Today, if a user have a profile to edit an asset in impact analysis have full rights to others assets relationships to delete even if it doesn't have access.

It could be nice to add rights to only control his own assets or at least deny the possibility to delete relations to other assets who don't have any permissions.

thanks

When a ticket has more than one validation, the requests validations and responses validations are visible in the ticket view (timeline) but there is any relation between the request ans the response.

For example:

1. A first validation request is created
2. A second validation request is created
3. Follow-ups and tasks are created before any validation responses
4. The second request is validated. You see validation in the ticket timeline but you do not see which one it corresponds to. You must go to the "Approvals" tab to view it.
   There is no link in the view between the request and the response

Automated Updates in GLPI Packet Deploy

Description:

Hello GLPI Team,

We have successfully implemented the GLPI ITSM infrastructure in our corporate environment, utilizing all available modules efficiently. One of our key use cases is leveraging the Packet Deploy task to automate third-party software updates.

Currently, even in the latest version, this feature is quite limited for managing software like:

Google Chrome

Mozilla Firefox

7-Zip

WinRAR

Visual Studio Code

(and other commonly used applications)

Feature Request

We would like to enhance the GLPI Packet Deploy system by:

Hosting third-party software in a local repository within GLPI, allowing for centralized deployment.

Enabling GLPI to check and fetch the latest available versions from official sources (internet) and dynamically update its local repository.

Implementing version control on client devices, ensuring that outdated software is automatically updated to the latest version via scheduled deployment tasks.

Why This Matters

If implemented, this feature would:

✅ Eliminate manual third-party software updates, significantly reducing IT workload.

✅ Enhance security by ensuring all clients are always running the latest patched versions.

✅ Improve compliance & system stability, preventing compatibility issues caused by outdated software.

We strongly believe this feature would be a game-changer for IT administrators using GLPI as a centralized software management solution.

Would you consider implementing this functionality? Looking forward to your feedback!

Thanks for your time and effort! 🚀

Hi,

There are a lot of features and events to send emails from ticket, but all of them require fine-tuning and adapting a lot of configuration, and this is a little bit complicated to cover every "use case" with these rules without actually spamming users.

I think we miss a simple feature to trigger a ticket notification manually regardless of the notification rules. Something such as "@user" notifying the user simply because i did "@user" in a ticket followup.

Longer explaination and example :

I would keep the existing rules, but i think it would be great to add an event or a feature working such as this :

When writing followup in a ticket " Hi, your ticket is now updated with something " => Everything is as before
When writing a followup in a ticket after the new feature is activated : " Hi @User123 , your ticket is now updated with something. "

Since i tagged the user with "@", he is notified.
That feature actually currently exists (tagging users with @), but it adds them to observer, and trigger a notification if they were not observers befeore.

I would want a feature that's allowing to send email when using "@" instead of adding users to observers.
It makes a lot more sense in my opinion, when you go to a mail system and use @ inside an email, it just adds a new recipient. I don't know why it doesn't do that in GLPI. Obviously adding them as observer is not a bad thing but the fact they are kind of spammed by rules and we can't give them mail notification manually when it's relevant is just a missing feature in my opinion.

There are a few ideas to workaround such as fine tuning notifications system and using private notes, but all of this is becoming increasingly more complex to set up and use, and is not very flexible either.

Hello,

I would like to propose several improvements to asset management in GLPI to optimize classification and monitoring, especially for servers.

1. Separation of “Computers” and “Servers” Assets

Currently, “Computers” and “Servers” are grouped together, which can make management more complex. It would be beneficial to introduce a native distinction between these two categories to better structure information and filtering.

2. Addition of a “Criticality” Field for Servers

To facilitate the management of critical infrastructure, a “Criticality” field should be added to server assets. This field could be customizable (e.g., low, moderate, high, critical) and usable in filters and reports.

3. Customizable Colors for Better Visibility

• Ability to assign a color to the “Criticality” field values to visually identify the most critical servers.

• An option to customize the colors of the “Status” field, allowing better differentiation of states (e.g., green for “Operational,” red for “Down,” orange for “Maintenance”).

4. Improved Operating System Management

• Automatic OS-to-Version, Kernel, and Edition Linking: When selecting an OS, it should automatically suggest only relevant versions, editions, and service packs. This would prevent errors and avoid displaying irrelevant versions. For example, selecting Windows Servershould not show ESXi versions in the dropdown list. Similarly, selecting Linux should not display Windows-specific versions.

• Additional Fields for OS End-of-Life (EOL) Tracking: Automatically populate fields with OS end-of-support dates based on an integrated database or API. This would help anticipate updates and migrations.

These enhancements would greatly improve asset readability and management, especially in large infrastructures where handling numerous servers and OS versions can be challenging without automation.

Thank you for considering this suggestion!

Many technicians ask us if they can receive notifications on a list of their service or area. For example, the deveoper unit has an email lilke "dev.app@xxxx.yyy".

It would be great to be able to assign a specific email to the groups (optional) and that it could be used for notifications.

That is, enter the email as one more data of information group and have the option to mark if you want to be notified via notifications in this email.

The kanban view is nice but it would better if who could order the items in each column of the kanban.

For example, we would like to order by priority when using the tickets.

We would like to order by latest modification date or creation date.

And we would like to keep this order when reloading the page.

Thanks

Would be cool if GPLI Agent could be directly deployed trough hub.balena.io

Hello,

The function to add a new dashboard (as seem in GLPI-Inventory plug-in and on GLPI-core itself) seems to assign the "name" in English, but on GLPI Core, it seems to assign the Dashboard name based on the current GLPI user language during install into ``glpi_dashboards_dashboards`` DB.

It would be great if GLPI could provide a way for plug-in and core classes to create translatable Dashboard names. I was able to translate a name if it's in English by adding ``$dashboard['name'] = __($dashboard['name']);`` into the foreach loop of ``getAll()`` function of ``Dashboard`` class, but it would require that the name of the Dashboard is saved in English on DB and to provide a way to ensure that the translation would be gathered by Transiflex since the translation happens on the fly instead of hardcoded, and as since the Transiflex bot doesn't extract those kind of strings, it would not detect the current Dashboard names as translatable as it is.

É possível criar mais de um quadro Kanban para o GLPI?