Best practice for assigning approvers from Jira Assets in JSM forms with multiple conditional automa

Tirupal Reddy Indireddy

Hi Community,

I’m working on a Jira Service Management form with Jira Automation and Jira Assets, and I’d appreciate guidance on the best approach.

I have a form with multiple conditional questions and approver assignment logic based on the selected answers. In particular:

• Scenario 1:

  • If GDP = No, another question appears: Architecture patterns required or not
  • If Yes, a checkbox list is shown with:
    • Data Pattern
    • Security Pattern
    • Infrastructure
    • Integration Pattern
    • AI Pattern
  •  check whether the selected Business Unit exists in Jira Assets under Trusted Business Unit
  • If it exists, I assign the related approvers to the Approvers field
  • I also have additional Yes/No conditional questions that affect approver assignment

• Scenario 2:

  • If GDP = No, another question appears: Architecture patterns required or not
  • If No, selected
  • I check whether the selected Business Unit exists in Jira Assets under Trusted Business Unit
  • If it exists, I assign the related approvers to the Approvers field
  • I also have additional Yes/No conditional questions that affect approver assignment

At the moment, I have split the logic into multiple automations because of the 65 component limit in Jira Automation. For one scenario, I use around 6–7 automations, and for another scenario, around 5–6 automations. These automations run in parallel.

The issue I’m facing is:

• Sometimes the automations skip assigning some approvers to the Approvers field
• When I send the email to approvers at the end, some recipients are missing
• I tried adding delays between automations, and that helped somewhat, but the issue still happens occasionally

My concern is whether using multiple parallel automations is the right approach here, or if there is a better design pattern to avoid missing approvers while staying within the Jira Automation component limit.

Could anyone please suggest:

• The best way to structure this logic
• How to avoid race conditions when multiple automations update the same Approvers field
• Whether there is a better approach than splitting into many parallel automations
• Any recommended workaround for the 65 component limit

Thanks in advance for your help.

Germán Morales

Hi @Tirupal Reddy Indireddy , the missing approvers are a classic lost-update race: several rules running in parallel all edit the same Approvers field, and only the last write survives, so the others vanish. It's the documented lost-update behaviour, and delays only lower the odds rather than fix it. Stop parallel-writing that one field, and you have a cleaner path than many rules:

• You likely don't need 6-7 rules. The 65-component cap is for standard rules; a rule built with Branch with Conditions is an advanced rule with a 500-component limit, so you can fold the whole flow into one rule and the cross-rule race disappears.
• Resolve every approver first, then write once. Hold the approvers as a reference attribute on the Trusted Business Unit object so a single Assets lookup returns them, build the full list, and set the Approvers field one time instead of each rule appending one.
• If you must keep more than one rule, chain them in sequence rather than in parallel, and add a Re-fetch issue data action before each edit so you update current values, not stale ones.