Automation - Edit Issue - Fields to set are not showing the correct selections in the drop down.

Question

Hi All,

I have what is a very basic automation.

* When: Issue created
* Then: Edit issue fields

Thats it.

The fields in question are "Product Categorization" and "Operational Categorization."

* Both are custom fields, but added from JSM when enabling ITSM features in the project.
* Both are cascading select lists.
* Both fields have a single context for all projects with only two drop-down choices: "Ask Jira Admin to customize" and "TBD" with no child options  (The default choices were deleted after the fields were created because they do not apply to us at all)

When I try and build my automation and chose the fields to set, I see them. They are added, but the options to select from the list are all the old ones I deleted.

It should just show "Ask Jira Admin to customize" or "TBD"

When I look at a ticket in this project - the fields are there, and the drop-down choices are correct.

What could be causing this field to be out of sync?  It has been days since I deleted the old stuff and added the new selection options.  Jira cloud is supposed to re-index itself and it is no longer an option.

(Side question that may help direct me to the problem)

I messed around with the advanced part of field edit to use JSON (Which I am horrid at), to see if I could edit the fields this way.

{
     "fields": {
          "customfield_10xxx1":"TBD"
           ,
           "customfield_10xx2":"TBD"
     }
}

The error I get is this for both fields:

*  Can not instantiate value of type [simple type, class com.atlassian.jira.issue.fields.rest.json.beans.CustomFieldOptionJsonBean] from JSON String; no single-String constructor/factory method (customfield_10xxx1)

Brad Missal · Answer

@Walter Buggenhout ,

I got to play with things a little more this evening.

I did get the automation to finally run using JSON and the fieldIDs.

I think you are correct about them being 'some type of system field.' It just acts weird!! - Since the fields came from JSM ISTM features, I am going to submit a bug.  I am pretty confident I did nothing wrong :)

I have sandbox where I built my baseline project new company-managed project.  The sandbox was a totally FRESH instance.  It shows the same problem as production. :(

That let me confirm its not some conflict with an old field or context.

And for Side notes - You said - ""It would also enable you to give them a more meaningful name (tbh: I don't see the link between Product categorization and ask IT to customize ...) ""

I will most likely get back to creating them as new custom fields, with different names, just to avoid any potential problems these weird fields may give down the road.

You are correct that the names are not totally meaningful to my users on 12 different teams. The attempt was to use fields 'out of the box' and many different teams to us it, but with context to their project. (i.e. Op-Cat for IT would be a list like, "Hardware, Software, Account", for our Warehouse team it could be "Equipment, Inventory, receiving".) Even though these fields appear to be 'out-of-box' from turning on ITSM features, we are seeing they truly are not.

What the default context in the list is only those two things "TBD" and "Ask Jira Admin to Customize" - so every time I spin up a new project using my baseline as a template - if they need this field, it shows them the messages to ask for their custom list.

Thank you for the reply.

Brad

Walter Buggenhout · Answer

Hi @Brad Missal,

I don't have en environment where I can reproduce the exact scenario you describe, but since you seem to be using fields here that were auto=generated by JSM when enabling features, I would not entirely be surprised that these fields are not just regular custom fields, but some type of system field with a will of their own.

From your explanation about the indexing mechanism etc, I see that you have some familiarity with Jira, so why don't you create new custom fields with the appropriate values instead of using these existing ones? It would also enable you to give them a more meaningful name (tbh: I don't see the link between Product categorization and ask IT to customize ...)

Hope this helps!