Sami Shaik Success Champion

Thanks @Keri Miriello , this is a real throughput win, and I would add one practitioner note for admins reading it: the most common bulkfetch call in the wild sends only issueIdsOrKeys and no fields, which means the default navigable set, which means it stays at 100. Nothing errors, nothing gets faster. So the first step…

Hi @Mic Wang , the Partner answer above is correct on the one thing that matters: the Approve button on the portal bypasses workflow validators, so you cannot force a field at the moment of approval. But that only rules out one design. The design that works moves the mandatory selection to before the approval step, and JSM…

Hi @Finn Witzenhausen , @Mia Tamm _Simpleasyty_ is right that "read everywhere, write only here" is the governance boundary everyone will need. The good news is that it already exists today, just not as an agent-level setting, and the agent-level version is on its way. Here is the model as Atlassian documents it, so you…

Thanks @Akhila RAMANAN , that confirmation narrows it down, and the no-admin constraint changes what you should do next rather than what the cause is. Two things you can check yourself, then one message to send your admin. What you can check without admin access: * Open the editor on a page you own and type / followed by…

@Adithya Ramesh , thank you, and thank you for answering @Rachit Singhal question directly; "Copy All projects before the cutoff" is the prerequisite most of us would have missed, and it explains the "(migrated)" duplicates cleanly. It means a lot to hear the scan and validation time and the legacy language are being…

Hello @jennifer_doll , @James Gamble design is the right one (keep the Reporter for the audit trail, hide with issue security), so I will add the half nobody has covered: what the person who raised the request actually sees on the portal afterwards, and what breaks. This is all documented behaviour, so you can design…

@Shawn Stevens , thank you, this is the most useful comment on the thread and it settles question 3 in a way I did not expect. Three things jump out of your numbers. The tool splits by divergence, not by space count. "Bug Field Configuration scheme" went from one scheme over 39 spaces to three: two single-space splits and…

Hello @Andrew Grube , @Christopher Yen has given you the two controls that exist, so let me add the part underneath them, because it decides which design you should pick: there is no conditional stop. The behaviour you are seeing is the continuous replies setting in /rovo manage doing exactly what the doc says it does:…

Hi @Chris Green , @Arkadiusz Wroblewski is pointing at the right area. Let me make the model explicit, because whether an email renders on that hover card is decided by two settings stacked on top of each other, and either one can flip without anyone touching your service space. Layer 1, the site setting. Settings, then…

@Rachit Singhal , that "(migrated)" suffix is a specific signature, and it tells us which path your fields took. The suffix is what cloud-to-cloud copy appends when a custom field on the source cannot be matched to one on the destination, and matching there is stricter than the name: the field is merged only when the name…

Good question @Rick Westbrock , and the honest answer is that there is no Connect-or-Forge label anywhere in the admin UI today; you are not missing a field. The Connected apps page identifies the platform only indirectly, through the messaging this article is about. Per Atlassian's own scenario table, an app built purely…

Brilliant, @Gary Spross , thank you for actually filing it. The in-editor channel is the one the workflow team reads, and a Champion's ticket carries weight. If you get a reference or a response, drop it here and I will add my voice to it, the Select-then-configure extra step is something every admin hits within the first…

@Shawn Stevens , thank you, those are the first real numbers anyone has posted: 16 Field schemes in production, 12 in the sandbox, from a set of spaces you describe as mostly identical. That is the sprawl question 3 was about, made concrete: the tool optimised for correctness per space rather than for reuse across spaces,…

Thanks @Gary Spross , that is a useful data point in itself, a Champion running it in production for two weeks, choosing to trust the automation rather than audit it, and seeing no fallout. For most teams that is probably the right trade, and I would rather have your "nothing broke" on record here than a hundred…

Hello @Akhila RAMANAN , one detail changes the check order: two of the three macros you named (Chart from Table, Pivot Table) are Marketplace app macros, and the Jira macro is the native one. An app macro's Edit control is rendered by the app, while Delete is rendered by the editor. So when the app is disabled, unlicensed,…

Hi @Pierre PM , here is the honest API-surface map as of today, because the answer is "part of it, and the part you most want is the missing piece." What the public API does cover. JPD ideas are Jira work items, so the standard Jira Cloud REST API creates and updates them, sets fields, adds comments, and creates work item…

Hello @ARajagopal2 , the word that explains both of your errors at once is distribution list. A distribution list is a routing rule, not a mailbox: mail sent to it is delivered into its members' mailboxes and nothing is stored at the list address itself. An OAuth-connected email channel has to sign in as a mailbox and poll…

Hello @Jasmine Simpson , the smart value is behaving as designed, which is the frustrating part: {{forms.last.Q1-image}} gives you the form's rendered answer for that question, and for an attachment question that answer is a reference to the file, not the file. The file itself is stored on the parent work item's Attachment…

Hi @Bhavana V , the combination you describe, the item opens fine by direct URL but key = RU3D-363 returns nothing, is a specific signature rather than a general "search is broken," and it narrows the cause to three mechanisms. @Karsten Gutjahr questions and @Duc Thang TRAN archive hunch are both pointing at this list;…

Hi @Kent G , @Fabian Lim and @Sam Njoroge have given you the two honest positions, and both are right for different shops. What is missing is the rule that tells you which one is yours, so here it is. It comes down to two questions about what a reassignment has to do in your setup. The constraint behind the whole question:…

Hi @KC Wong , @Arkadiusz Wroblewski covered the URL and header half correctly, so I will take the part you are actually asking about: why two credentials with the same two scopes behave differently. Short version: they are not being evaluated against the same scope list. The three layers first, because the failing one is…

@Gary Spross , and it is a good example of the pattern the new editor has in a few places: the rule picker reads as a list you click through, but it actually behaves as a form you submit, so the extra Select step feels like friction every single time. Since a Champion voice carries weight with the product team, it is worth…

@Kvitka Martsynyshyn , you are right on two of the three counts, and worth separating them because Francisco needs the third: there is no documented mapping and there is no public API for it, agreed. But a practical mapping does exist today, and I verified it in product on an Enterprise org on 26 August before posting it…

@Gary Spross , that is the most reassuring data point in this thread, thank you: two weeks in production with no negative feedback is worth more than any doc. Two follow-ups, since you are the only one here on the far side of the migration: * Did you audit the auto-optimisation removals afterwards, or did the tool report…

Thanks @Shawn Stevens , and the sandbox question is the right one to ask. In our case the policy blocks EAP and beta enrollment as a category, sandbox included, so the opt-in route is closed to us. What the sandbox does give us is the Preview release track, which surfaces track-released changes a few weeks before…

Hello @Rachel Jenkins , good news: the capability you want is real and GA, and the setting you are hunting for exists. It is just not where you have been told to look. It is not in the automation rule's JSON, it is a per-agent configuration toggle. The setting: an agent only becomes assignable after its Work item surface…

Hello @Francisco Castrillo , @Matteo Vecchiato pointed in the right direction, and I tested it in product today, 26 August, on an Enterprise org, because there is one precision that makes or breaks it: the agents export has no column called agent ID. The column you want is "User id." What is actually going on: Rovo agents…

Hello @sundeepkothurthi , the good news first: if the value was entered at creation and later changed by a person or a bulk operation, the original value is still recoverable. Jira does not store a separate "as created" snapshot, but it stores every change as a from and to pair, and that is enough to reconstruct creation…

Good question @Ray Stone , and no, you are not missing a hidden feature. One portal form per request type is the current design boundary, and @Ben Friedman _Ben_viter_io_ three workarounds above are the right tactical menu (the post-create form addition in his option 2 is underused and worth testing for your flow). What I…

Sharp observation @David Villalobos , and your reading of Studio is correct: Reasoning (Quick answers / Think deeper) is an agent-level setting, and subagents deliberately have no reasoning control of their own. Here is what the official record establishes, and where it stops. What is documented: * The reasoning tier and…