Jira Automation - different actions based on each value in a multi-select field

Hello @John Funk 

Right now there are individual automation rules for 11 values:

Rule 1:

if field contains A do these actions.

Rule 2: 

If field contains B do these actions

etc.

Can you provide an example of how you would do multiple branches? What would be the condition for your branches?

The condition for each branch would be the condition you have for each rule right now. 

Do you mean something like this?

WHEN triggered

BRANCH: JQL: key={{triggerIssue.key}} and Field is in (A)
  DO THINGS

BRANCH: JQL: key={{triggerIssue.key}} and Field is in (B)
  DO THINGS

The above does not work because Branch JQL automatically excludes the trigger issue from being considered in the results set. Even if I add 
key={{triggerIssue.key}}
the branch says no matching related issues are found.

Can you share what that looks like in the actual rule? I am not following you because you should indeed be able to use the trigger issue in the branch as the trigger issue is still the trigger issue. But also yes, what you had there. 

But also, why are using using trigger issue at all in the branch JQL? It will already be acting on the trigger issue. 

Hi   

Let us say I have these three rules

Rule #1:

WHEN Issue created
IF Checkbox in (A)
THEN Assign issue

Rule #2:

WHEN Issue created
IF Checkbox in (B)
THEN Comment Issue

Rule #3:

WHEN Issue created
IF Checkbox in (C)
THEN Manage Watchers

Based I think you are suggesting this:

WHEN issue created
BRANCH Related Issues JQL: Checkbox in (A)
-- Assign issue
BRANCH Related Issues JQL: Checkbox in (B)
-- Comment issue
BRANCH Related Issues JQL: Checkbox in (C)
-- Manage Watchers

The "BRANCH Related Issues" option excludes the trigger issue from consideration.

Here is my example rule following that format (using just a log action)

I intentionally used a bad smart value in the first JQL so that it would print out the JQL in the error message in the log.

Here is my test issue ACK-249

And here is the Audit Log output.

Notice in the error for the first branch that and key != ACK-249 has been automatically added to the JQL, excluding the trigger issue.

Notice also in the next branch that it executed the JQL I provided but found only the other issue (ACK-7)where I had selected the specified value in the check box

But it occurs to me now maybe what you are suggesting is this:

WHEN issue created
BRANCH Current work item
-- IF Checkbox in (A)
-- THEN Assign issue
BRANCH Current work item
-- IF Checkbox in (B)
-- THEN Comment issue
BRANCH Current work item
-- IF Checkbox in (C)
-- THEN Manage Watchers

This type of structure does work.

Hello @Gor Greyan 

Thank you for your reply, but you are incorrect.

A rule will exit when an IF condition evaluates as false.

Let us say my field has options: All, French, German, Spanish.

Let us say I set the field in an issue to select All, French, and German; not Spanish.

Let us say I have a manually triggered rule with this structure:

If Spanish then comment Spanish
If French then comment French
If German, then comment German

When I run that rule it stops running at the "If Spanish" block because that condition is not met.

I have found a partial solution for the case when the same action should be taken for each value such as the case above where the action is to add a custom Comment for each value. 

In that case I can iterate over the values in the field with an Advanced Branch, and use a Lookup Table to look up the field value and get the custom comment text to use in the Comment action.

I haven't yet figured out how to handle a need for different actions based on each value in the multi-select field.

Hi @Trudy P Claspill

Thank you.

Yes, it is right, my original suggestion wasn't correct. I was approaching it from a different angle and expected the conditions to be evaluated independently. In Data Center, I have automations in that logic, and it is not stopping after the first IF, when it is false.

It's an interesting use case, and I'm going to give it some more thought to see if I can come up with another solution that keeps everything within a single rule. If I find one, I'll be sure to come back and share it here.