Problem with quickfilter in Kanban Board

[IT IT]

We have an Kanban-Board with quickfilters and queries like:

issue in issuesParents("assignee = <user>") OR assignee = <user> OR issue in issuesSubtasks("issue in issuesParents('assignee = <user>') or assignee = <user>")

When adding another one with a different user  we get displayed:

"Search Limit will be applied to the results of the jql query. Current search limit is 10000"

and can´t add the filter.

I mean: yes, we are aware of that! But: Since when you can´t add filters with such queries anymore? And why?

Anyone got an Idea for a workaround?
and: Bug or feature?

Regards,

Sven

[John Funk]

Hi @IT IT 

It doesn't sound like the issue is that you can't, it's that the result of the execution of the query returns too many rows.

[IT IT]

Hi @John Funk 

Well, no.
When I execute the query I want to add, I get exactly 71 results.
Other already saved quickfilters with other Usernames result in other numbers... 758... 2538...

Oh and: Yes, when I execute that query I get the Warning-Message too, but it runs nevertheless.

Seems that warning blocks the adding / saving-function.

[John Funk]

So the problem is that it won't save the Quick Filter? 

If you run that query just as a filter, does it work? 

[IT IT]

Standalone it runs perfectly fine. As a "normal"filter it also can be saved.

But also displays "Search Limit will be applied to the results of the jql query. Current search limit is 10000" below. the query line when searching.

The issue is, that it only can´t be saved as a quickfliter in Kanban-Boards.

[John Funk]

Hmmm, that's strange. Maybe save the filter and capture the filter ID. 

Then in the quick filter JQL, just use: filter=83487

Where the number is the filter ID. 

Let's see if that works. 

[IT IT]

I actually forgot to mention:
Saving the filter and entering the filter-id is the exact workaround we use at the moment.

That works fine actually, but it would be nice, if it works without that workaround. ;)

Well, I think, we´ll have to live with it because I do not see the chance, that we get that through as a bug...

[John Funk]

I don't really see it as a workaround - just another way to implement the filter.