Putting field value instead of ID in Automation Rule JSON

David Maurel

Hi,

I have a question regarding the automation rule JSON Export. Here's the context : I migrated from JIRA Server, then created a bunch of automation rules in my new Cloud site. I had to clean the site to import from Server a second time, but I didn't want to lose my rules, so I exported them all in a JSON file before cleaning the site.

After importing the JSON, I encountered a small, but annoying problem : when it came to conditions with issue types, all the values were IDs instead of text values. So my automation rule condition ended up like this

Field : issue type

Condition : Equals

Value : 10086, instead of "Incident", with a nice red "value not found" beside the number...

I found the part in the JSON file where the issue types conditions are defined :

My question is : why is an issuetype coded with the ID of its value instead of the text label of its value, and can I safely import after changing the code this way :

"selectedFieldType": "issuetype",
"comparison": "EQUALS",
"compareValue": {
    "type": "NAME",
    "modifier": null,
    "value": "Incident",
    "multiValue": false,
    "source": null
}

instead of what i got in the JSON export :

"selectedFieldType": "issuetype",
"comparison": "EQUALS",
"compareValue": {
    "type": "ID",
    "modifier": null,
    "value": "10086",
    "multiValue": false,
    "source": null
}

 

Bill Sheboy

Hi @David Maurel 

With Jira Cloud, there are company-managed and team-managed projects.  And as the name implies, team-managed support project-level configuration of issue types, custom fields, etc.  If you use just the name for a type there could be a mismatch for rules which span multiple projects.  This same configuration feature also causes challenges for saved filters, dashboard gadgets, and potentially addon report tools.

Perhaps try creating a test project in your new Cloud instance and import the rules to check for possible impacts for types, status values, etc.

Kind regards,
Bill