Need to determine the linked issues for every story

[Jeff Davis]

Hello, everyone! On my team's project, all our user stories are each linked to a statement-of-work requirement, and some of them are linked to multiple requirements. If I export a user story query to Excel, each linked requirement shows up in a column called Linked Issue (Requirements Derivation). If a story is linked to four requirements, there are four columns each labeled Linked Issue (Requirements Derivation) with one value for that story, not four entries in a cell in one column for that story. I hope that makes sense.

Is there some query I could run, a report I could generate, or maybe some way to set up a pivot table in an Excel export, to show Story-123 is linked to these requirements, Story-456 is linked to these requirements? I have a pivot table now, but I must be missing something because it's still very manual to get the information, and having no luck with queries, either.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

[Bill Sheboy]

Hi @Jeff Davis 

These many-to-many relationships are difficult to report on from out-of-the-box Jira.  Sprint seems to be the exception where you can use the Two-Dimensional dashboard gadget to do what you ask...unfortunately that gadget doesn't support links or this would be easy for you.

There are probably marketplace add-ons for purchase to support this type of reporting. As work-arounds you could:

1. Use an automation rule to add/maintain labels to issues representing the linked requirements.  Then use the Two-Dimensional or Issue Statistics gadgets to see/access the issues.
2. Using a spreadsheet and export, build formulas in the spreadsheet that concatenate the linked values into one column and use that in your pivot table with a membership test
3. Again with a spreadsheet export, first add a Jira custom field and update it with an automation rule to contain the list of linked requirements as a CSV string.  When you export to the spreadsheet, that single column would have all requirements and make it easier to perform the pivot you suggest.

Best regards,

Bill