nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Community
- Command Central
- MVP Program
- Monthly Mission
- Blogs
- Groups
- Events
- Media Vault
- SolarWinds Academy
Products
- Observability
- Network Management
- Application Management
- IT Security
- IT Service Management
- System Management
- Database Management
Content Exchange
- SolarWinds Platform
- Server & Application Monitor
- Database Performance Analyzer
- Server Configuration Monitor
- Network Performance Monitor
- Network Configuration Manager
- SQL Sentry
- Web Help Desk
Free Tools & Trials
Store

Community Posts

The most recent content from our members.

Community Posts

The most recent content from our members.

Recent Posts

Expanded Comparison Operators for Number Fields in Process Workflows
Summary Currently, when configuring a Condition Set in a Process workflow using a Number field, the only available operators are "Equals" and "Not Equal". This limitation restricts the ability to build more dynamic and flexible approval logic. Request Please add support for additional comparison operators for Number fields…
Less Than / Greater Than options for Number Fields
I'm trying to create an approval process where my Process workflow uses a Condition Set on a Number field but the only operators available are 'Equals' or 'Not Equal'. Is there any way to achieve either Less Than, Less Than or equal to, Greater Than, or Greater Than (or equal to) conditions?
Add Conditions based on Date Fields
It would be nice to be able to have processes that do things based on the input of a date field. Today I was trying to setup one as simple as "If <date field> is not empty", since it is not a required field in this form, and I couldn't even do that. Other options could be if date is before a specific date, or after a…
Add "Requester" condition set to Service Catalog
"Form Logic" and "Process" have conditions for "Requester Site" and "Requester Department," but the "Requester" cannot be conditioned directly. This condition set already exists withing automation rules. If brought to the Service Catalog, there are lots of unique ways to utilize on a form-by-form basis. For example, when…
Add All Fields in Dynamic Form Rules
When creating a Dynamic Form Rule, Not all fields in a given scope are available as a condition. One example that's really affecting us, is that "Type" is not available for "Other Assets". This forces us to create a giant list of parameters that are displayed for every asset.
Wildcards in Condition Sets
Currently, condition sets in service requests do not support wildcards. We have multiple condition sets throughout our service catalog. The obvious solution would be to avoid text fields by presenting a drop down list - this works for short lists, but some of our lists are quite long, thus the need for a text field…
Wildcards in Service Requests
It would be nice to use wildcards in service request condition sets. Currently they are only allowed in automation rules. We employ condition sets, among them some based on an employee's job title. For example, there are several job titles in my company containing the terms "Branch Manager", so it would be nice to apply…
Add All Fields in Dynamic Form Rules
When creating a Dynamic Form Rule, Not all fields in a given scope are available as a condition. One example that's really affecting us, is that "Type" is not available for "Other Assets". This forces us to create a giant list of parameters that are displayed for every asset.

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.