Bill Sheboy Expert

Hi @nasiruddin.nordin Context is important for automation rule questions. Please post an image of your complete automation rule, images of any relevant actions / conditions / branches, an image of the audit log details showing the rule execution, and explain what is not working as expected. Those will provide context for…

Hi @Vadym Hrigorash For a question like this, please post an image of your complete automation rule, images of any relevant actions / conditions / branches, an image of the audit log details showing the rule execution, and explain what is not working as expected. Those will provide context for the community to offer ideas.…

Hi @Cliff Stovich After the GDPR changes for privacy, the account id values are all that is available from the mention. If there was just one user, you could call the REST API functions to get their name. But with multiple users that might not work because of limitations with list iterators. An elaborate work-around for…

Thanks, and you were on the right path initially: * trigger: issue field updated for fix version * advanced compare condition: to check if the field was empty with the change log * advanced compare condition: to check if there is one-and-only-one version in the field * action: edit issue, to set the fields from the fix…

That trigger fires when some fields of a version are updated. That is independent of any issues being linked to the version (such as with Fix Version or Affected Version). Note that not all changes to a version will trigger that one. It seems your scenario has changed a bit. Under what conditions do you want the rule to do…

Hi @Priyanka Gupta Have you tried filtering on the key, such as with this: project = yourProjectName AND key >= WCP-3000 ORDER BY Key ASC Kind regards, Bill

Unfortunately, there are lots of typos in the documentation for automation rules and smart values: https://support.atlassian.com/cloud-automation/docs/jira-smart-values-issues/#--issue.fixVersions-- Assuming there is only one version in the issue, you may get the release date from it with this:…

Using the Comment on Issue action, that expression I noted may be used to add the key of the linked issue...without the need to branch or look it up other ways.

Thank you for clarifying the scenario, Isabella. As you only want the dates set when the first Fix Version is added, I believe the rule can take advantage that Fix Version is a list field. And so an advanced compare condition may be used to confirm there is only one value by checking the size (count of items): * first…

Was that image from the entire message or what you logged for {{webhookData.fields.summary}}? If that was the entire message, I do not see "fields" in the message, so try removing that part: {{webhookData.summary}}

Sounds good. And sorry I could not help more, although I did learn some things about Lookup Table limitations by trying :^)

It is possible there is still a formatting error in there. And there is one other possibility I have seen with web messages and JSON in rules: sometimes a timing problem prevents fully parsing before validation. (Although the 400 error would seem not to indicate that cause.) Let's try this: * Add a Create Variable action,…

Please post an image of your complete automation rule, the details of the send email action, and of the audit log details showing the rule execution. Those will provide context to help explain this symptom. Thanks!

If the field's name has been changed in your site instance, the smart value (and custom field id) must be confirmed before proceeding. Smart values are name, spacing, and case-sensitive. And, they often do not match the displayed name on the issue views. To identify the smart value and custom field id, please use the…

Progress! That tells us the smart value is empty, or not available at the time the JQL is used. Please try writing this to the audit log, just before your statement using the JQL: This should not be empty: {{issue.TempoAccountField.value}} Then test your rule and post an image of the audit log. Once possible cause of this:…

Would you please post an image of the rule itself? If you are are unable to do so, what do you mean by "test = 108"? Here is what I see when I do that with Jira Cloud:

Hi @bhanu teja Without seeing the entire webhook data message, it appears you are referencing something that does not exist in the data, or is empty: {{webhookData.fields.summary}} I recommend writing just that to the audit log, and then using details of your message to adjust the issue create action. Kind regards, Bill

Hi @Jarmo Parviainen What do you mean by "overrun"? Automation rules are triggered by events (e.g., issue created). And rules have "scope" of a single project, multiple projects, or global (all projects). And so if the event happens, the rule runs, regardless of the rule scope. An exception is when Atlassian has an outage…

Hi @Simon Tilbury Adding to the already provided answer... The flag indicator you show in the screen image is a built-in field called Flagged for Jira Cloud. Do you see that one in your custom field configuration for the site? Perhaps that "Impeded" field is another one added for a marketplace addon or by a site admin.…

Hi @Jerry -- Welcome to the Atlassian Community! That is not possible at this time. The REST API functions for project versions do not return the notes (and so rules cannot see them), and there is no direct URL to access them (as a work-around). There is a very old suggestion to add a direct URL for accessing them but none…

Hi @[deleted] -- Welcome to the Atlassian Community! For JQL queries, it is still possible to preserve the user name: just wrap it in quotation marks and Jira will not convert it to the user's account id value. This makes maintaining the filters easier. For example: assignee IN ("Carla Shepard") If you instead typed in…

Great; that helps! And so I would expect your two rules to look like this: Rule 1 * trigger: issue created * action: re-fetch issue (This helps prevent timing problems when using the Issue Created trigger.) * action: create issue, linking it to the trigger issue as you show Rule 2 * trigger: field value changes for Due…

Please post an image showing the audit log with the details expanded (Show more) so we can see which steps did / did not run. Thanks!

Once you are inside of the scope of the Lookup Issues iterator, you may drop the issue prefix in front of {{#issue.comments}} to just {{#comments}}

My apologies as after some testing I realized neither of those ways will work: The Lookup Table entries cannot be filtered with a math expression (e.g., value is greater than 10). Only a literal expression can be matched for (e.g., value=10). And the inline method can be summed or filtered, but not both. So the remaining…

Please try this adjustment: {{#issue.comments}} {{#if(equals(body.match(".*(React).*"),"React"))}}{{body}}{{/}}{{^last}}, {{/}} {{/}} That will return any matches where "React" is in the body, delimited with a comma. You could also use indexOf("React").gte(0) instead:

How are Story A and Story B related? Are they connected with issue links, or something else?

Hi @Isabella Musial First thing, your rule shows a condition on Fix Version is empty, and then the edit issue actions are referencing that same field (which is empty). Am I missing the intent of your rule? Or did you instead want to use a different source value / issue for the edit action? Can your issues ever have more…

Hi @Sam Harding I have an edge-case question based on something asked in a community post: When using smart value, list filtering, what is the maximum number of matches that can be found? Is it up to the list limit or is it a lower value, such as the 100 limit used for other things like branches, lookups, etc.? The…

Sounds good; if the variables are always updated for each environment you should always have the latest deployment. With the match() function, rules use a regular expression. Then you could use text functions after that to extract the data you need. I have never heard of a limit on the return count for a list filter with…