Group by other platform ticket number

Question

Hi there,

We have several customers and in some cases they required us to open a ticket in their platform so we use their email account for "email requests" in order to open the ticket and viceversa.

We tried to fix this with a SOP for both sides so help desk tecnicians could adding manually the subject the other platform ticket number but... human error its really big so a lot of replies that opening new tickets.

How can we group not just by our JIRA issue number and algo by other platform number? E.g: INCXXXXXX

Did anyone had to deal with this? Any workaround?

Thank you, kind regards,

Iago

Iago Gomez-Salgado · Answer

Hi Hannes,

Exactly! Thank you for your help. I hope someone could bring us some hope with a workaround. We keep working on it, if we have any advances we will share it.

Thank you, kind regards,

Iago

Hannes Obweger - JXL for Jira · Answer

Hi Iago,

thanks for clarifying. If I understand correctly, you essentially want Jira to group email responses not based on the issue key, but based on the external ID - is this about right? If so, I unfortunately don't have a solution, and doubt that this is possible. Sorry!

Iago Gomez-Salgado · Answer

Hi @Hannes Obweger - JXL for Jira

By grouping by I mean that our customers use they own ticketing platform so they open tickets such as "INCXXXXX our INC-XXXXX" and then we have our own ticket number CUSTOMERKEY-NUMBER. In that moment JSM will group by CUSTOMERKEY-NUMBER but the customer don't usuallly update their subject with that ticket number so if they reply again they will use INCXXXXX instead of INCXXXXX AND CUSTOMERKEY-NUMBER. That means that each reply will open a new issue. We'd like to group by not just for the JSM default criteria, also by their INC.

In other cases it is otherwise, once we open a ticket they will open an INCXXXX and we need to capture they ticket number in order to not open a new ticket in their platform for each of our replies.

I hope I explained better the issue now. I don't think a custom field will fix the problem, but in case it does, could you please explain further?

Thank you, kind regards,

Iago