I am basically wanting to assign the test case review subtask to a group of QA on a round robin basis and I never want it to assign the task to the person whos designated as the assigned tester. Need a better way to write this since it is having issues.
Hello @Bobby Moyini
What issue are you encountering, specifically?
Can you share with us the details from the rule execution Audit Log showing us what you receive when you encounter the problem?
The issue is that the sub task sometimes assigns to the same person as the assigned tester. The log doesn't show any exceptions or errors.
What type of field is customfield_10102?
Why are you using that field in your comparison instead of "{{issue.assignee}}"
I suggest that you try adding a Log action after the Re-fetch and before the If: Compare components.
In that Log action print the exact two smart values you are using in the Compare.
Then check the rule execution audit log the next time a subtask is created and gets assigned inappropriately. Verify that the log indicates the two smart values being compared are set to the same value.
I suspect that they the two smart values are not going to show the same value.
Why?
You are using the Assign action for the sub-task. That sets the "assignee" field. But in the comparison you are looking at customfield_10102. The "assignee" field doesn't have a "customfield_#####" alias, so I don't think you are using the correct field in your comparison.
That field references a custom field for assigned tester. When we generate QA subtasks we create test case creation , test case review , and test case execution subtasks. What the automation is attempting to do is assign the test case review subtask to someone other than the assigned tester in the parent (the other two subtasks pull in the assigned tester from the parent)
I was assuming the automation was assigning the subtask based on round robin and then checking if that sub task was assigned to somebody that matches the assigned tester field. If it did match it would run the round robin again and assign it to someone other than that person.
I'm open to a better way to do this if there is a good alternative.
It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
