nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

How should the assignee and reporter be set in Jira tickets for bug fixes?

jiw

Hello.

Our company uses Jira in the following scenario.

Let's assume a QA team discovers a bug in a system. The QA team creates a Jira issue ticket for this bug, where they are set as the reporter and the development team as the assignee. After the development team completes the necessary code fix, the assignee is changed to the QA team. The QA team then verifies that the bug is resolved and closes the Jira ticket.

In the end, both the assignee and reporter fields show the QA team, which makes it look as if the QA team directly fixed the bug.

Is this a good workflow?

How do you manage collaboration between QA and development teams in Jira?

Thank you!

Accepted answers

John Funk

Hi Jiw - Welcome to the Atlassian Community!

No, I would not assume that the ultimate assignee is the person who fixed the bug. This is just following the normal flow as it should. I think it is great as you have it.

Yong Yang

Hi @jiw

In my actual practices, the final assingee should be assigned back to the developer who submitted for testing. I will make statistics the total number of bugs of every developer based on the assignee field after the bugs are resolved.

Hope it helps,

Thanks,

YY Bro

All comments

John Funk

Hi Jiw - Welcome to the Atlassian Community!

No, I would not assume that the ultimate assignee is the person who fixed the bug. This is just following the normal flow as it should. I think it is great as you have it.

Yong Yang

Hi @jiw

Hope it helps,

Thanks,

YY Bro

jiw

Thank you comment. Could you explain in more detail why you consider this a normal flow?

jiw

I agree with your comment. However, from the QA team’s perspective, there is one issue to address. The QA team argues that they should be set as “Assignee” field because they are involved in the final stages of development. They also believe that the “Assignee” field should reflect the QA team for better tracking of their Jira ticket lists. Personally, I think having the QA team listed as the “Reporter” should be sufficient. How do you think?

John Funk

The assignee is the person who is performing that step of the work. A task/issue will go through potentially several steps on it's way to Done. So different people will perform different steps at different times. That person is the assignee for that work in that step. If the last step is for QA to test and deploy, then the QA Analyst would be the last assignee, not the developer or anyone else.

John Funk

I would 100% disagree with this approach. If you need to run reports about who the developer was, then create a custom user picker field to capture the Developer and run your reports from that. But in no way is the assignee at the end of the process to be considered to be the developer who worked on the issue.

jiw

@John Funk

Thank you for sharing such a great idea! I learned a lot.
I think creating a custom field called 'Developer' would be a good idea.
Lastly, could you provide your opinion on my question?
I think that the 'Reporter' can provide feedback on the 'Assignee's' work results. In this sense, does it really make sense for the QA team to be set as the 'Assignee'?

In our company, all Jira tickets have the same 'Reporter' and 'Assignee.'
In the end, all closed tickets are as follows..
- For bug tickets, the 'Reporter' is the QA team, and the 'Assignee' is also the QA team.
- For new feature development tickets, the 'Reporter' is the Planning team, and the 'Assignee' is also the Planning team.
I think this is unusual.

what do you think?

Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Quick Links

Find more posts tagged with

jira

cloud

jira-cloud