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; } } }

What links a JIRA issue to Bitbucket commits/PRs

Edward Basiliere

Hello,

We are using the server versions of both JIRA and Bitbucket. When I view JIRA project releases I can view issues belonging to that release. The Development column shows commits and the merge status of pull requestsl linking to those tickets.

I see commits linked from having the JIRA issue ID in the commit message. What else creates this link? Branches with a JIRA issue ID in the name? Anything else?

Thanks!

Accepted answers

Mikael Sandberg

JIRA issues are linked when you mention the JIRA key in Bitbucket, either in the branch name, as part of the description or comment in a pull request or as part of the commit comment (as you have seen).

Here is some more information about the integration, https://confluence.atlassian.com/bitbucketserver/jira-integration-776639874.html

All comments

Mikael Sandberg

Here is some more information about the integration, https://confluence.atlassian.com/bitbucketserver/jira-integration-776639874.html

Edward Basiliere

Perfect. Thank you!

Edward Basiliere

Do user forks not apply?

I committed to a user repo under my account, which displayed the commit fine in the Development area in the JIRA issue.

When I attempted the same in a forked repo under my account, the commit did not display in the JIRA issue.

I also tested with a fork that is under a project, not a user account, and that displays fine.

Thanks.

Ben Taylor_0ixyfr

I've run into this just now, I find that issues are linked in the Bitbucket PR if I mention the JIRA ticket in the git branch name or in the git commit message, but they if I mention them in the PR description or in a comment then the text is hyperlinked but the ticket number does not appear at the top as a linked ticket. This doesn't seem to be the expected behaviour, going by the answer above?

John Bain

@Mikael Sandberg - This is a broken, and not thoroughly considered solution from my perspective, which is causing massive issues when creating Jira filter queries based on pr status (especially bad when releasing). Here's the main problem with this design: By default, Jira branch names include the issue key, and by default the BitBucket pull request commit message includes the branch name. So, we have Jira issues with branches, and pull requests created from them, then merged and closed, now showing up on other unrelated Jira issues, because any branch off of develop which "refreshes" from the main integration branch (develop), will then pick up those merge commits which contain the Jira Issue ID/branch name, causing a closed ticket in Jira to show open pull requests, and additional branches associated with it, even if that isn't the case. I'm thinking the most complicated manner to fix this issue is to require either a rebase when "refreshing" from develop (rebasing, though sometimes a very useful strategy, is absurdly complex when you have a monolithic codebase of over 8 million LOC, and over 200+ developers). I wish instead that the default bitbucket branch commit history, which I'm assuming is what is being implemented by the REST caller from Jira to BitBucket, instead used a default --first-parent, or even a git log HEAD ^develop type of filter so as not to include all the commits which have occurred on the integration branch. If there is some configuration setting to avoid this, I would love to know it. Please help, or at the very least, consider this a defect, and FIX IT. :-)

Jack Lippold

Hear hear!

Welcome!

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

Quick Links

Find more posts tagged with

jira

bitbucket

bitbucket-server

jira-server

atl-gruland