Jehan Gonsalkorale Atlassian Team

Hi @Patricia Pattin ! Thanks for posting your question. Are the fields literally identical? If they are, please remove one and the issue will be resolved immediately. I'm not exactly sure how this bug occurs but do know that data will only be stored once for the field so removing the duplicate won't cause any data loss.…

Hi @Dirk Ronsmans, That is a good question. Unfortunately, we do not have support for ProForma Forms in the issue create experience yet (but it is definitely planned). I can't provide an ETA at this point but I can say that it is a high priority. I hope that helps. 

Thanks @Amaresh Ray – Multiplier, That makes sense. I think this will be unaffected because it is in the portal, whereas what we have shipped will only impact the global issue create within Jira projects. So, your app should still be running as expected. :) 

Hey @Amaresh Ray – Multiplier I can confirm that this is not compatible with apps for the use case you described. If you describe your use case I can look into how best to solve it, always happy to help!

Hi @Juan Ignacio Tel, You are correct, unfortunately. Duplicate is not available for Team Managed Projects yet but it is something we are looking into. Sorry that we can't help you at this point, but I will bring this to the team as it is something we would like to solve. 

Hi @Amaresh Ray – Multiplier, Great to hear from you! I hear things are going very well for you. :) This change should not impact apps that are built on the portal, so my first thought is that it won't, but I will double check. 

@Dirk Ronsmans I think you're right that this will apply to any tickets created in JSM projects, regardless of the user type. I'd definitely appreciate if you could have a play and let me know if it meets all your needs, always keen on feedback. :)

Thanks @Dirk Ronsmans, that is something we will review after launch. That said, those fields will be pre-filled in this roll out, so it will be a good starting place. There aren't any plans on enabling the portal for JSW and JWM at this point as far as I'm aware. I think the idea is that use cases that require a portal…

@Dirk Ronsmans essentially yes! The one difference is that they will see fields that are hidden with preset values but they will be prefilled (which we may change later if that suits users better). And yes, no more jumping back and forth, this will be the easiest place for agents to create tickets! 

Hi @Sólrún Ásta Björnsdóttir really sorry about this. This is a known issue that we are working on as a matter of urgency. That said, I'd rather you not experience this bug a moment longer so could you share the url of your tenant with me? We will turn off the new experience on your instance for now while we resolve this.…

Hi Yash! Sorry for the late reply, I didn't see this. I can't see a screenshot here. I don't think there is a workaround unless you keep the attachment as a regular field in the request type. But this will be resolved next quarter (that is the current ETA). 

@Andrew Hewitson , good to hear from you! See @Simon H's comment above. The plan is to ship this feature next quarter. :)

@Kalin U , thanks for the kind words! Your feedback makes sense, we will look into these in the coming weeks. We are working through a few different bugs but these kinds of enhancements are exactly what we are trying to do. 

Hi @Rune Rasmussen, the best documentation that is currently available is located here. I can understand if this doesn't meet your needs and will flag that a more exhaustive list or table would be more useful. As for customisability, features that should be available for all request types will likely more broadly available…

Thanks Rune, these are very good questions. As many things have been enabled recently, I'll ask the team so I can get the most up to date information. 

Hi @Paweł Światły, you ask a very good question. Work categories are groups of request types that share a similar use case and may have additional features. This essentially gives you category-specific queues and features like major incidents, the change calendar, alerts etc. In JSM, issue types provide configuration that…

@Vincenzo Favara, could you share a screenshot? I suspect this is because you have work categories selected, which would result in request types being split into their respective groups, including "Unassigned" where no group is mapped. The duplicate option should still appear but you will also have other options like…

Thanks @Muhammad Fahad great to know this feature will be useful to you. I'm not sure about plugins as this will depend on how they are implemented. Jira configuration from the issue type and its associated screen scheme, field configuration, workflow and context will obviously continue as per usual and request type…

Thanks for your comment @Rune Rasmussen, I understand where you are coming from. This is something that we may explore in the future. Work categories do provide more functionality than simply queues as some have additional features (for example, "incidents" has incident management features like major incident escalation…

Hi @Dave Mathijs , that's a very good question. Nothing actually happens and issue types are something that experienced admins should rename based on their needs. The only thing that will happen is that we will still offer the option of creating our out of the box issue type again (in the drop down when you create a new…

Thanks @Serhat Demirkol , I understand your sentiments, it definitely should be a feature. We are working on this right now and hope for this to go out in about six months from now. Apologies for the delay, it is a substantial piece of work but is also our highest priority. Any questions or concerns, please reach out. Best…

Hi Robert, We have just rolled out the functionality to move a request type across work categories. You can select the "Move" option from the meatballs menu on "Project settings" > "Request types" page. I hope this helps, at the very least for next time. Best regards, Jehan

Hi Jeyhun, I've updated the ticket to let people know that we still want to improve this functionality. I completely agree with you. There are customers asking for @ mentions without restrictions but that could cause issues when there are privacy concerns. I'm working with the team to prioritise this so we can start moving…

Hi Janik, This is something we are actively working on. I understand the experience right now is not ideal, particularly when you have lots of request types sharing the same issue type (or, more accurately, screen scheme). We will be rolling out a change in the coming months where this behaviour will stop and fields will…

Hi Nikita, Thanks for your question! Unfortunately, Forms don't currently support attachment fields. This is, however, planned work. The current workaround is to add the attachment field to the request type configuration. We do acknowledge that this leaves the attachment above the form which is not optimal. This is a high…

Hi Raoul, Thanks for your question, many people have had similar questions. The groups you see are not issue types but "Work categories". These are groups of request types that share a similar use case and have, in some cases, additional features (for instance, incident management comes with Opsgenie integration). We don't…

Hi @sivaskanthan.jegatheswaran , thanks for your input! That is, unfortunately, not possible at this time but one of many things we are looking into. This is a new feature that we want to test and learn with. Your feedback will help us understand how we can improve this. I'll provide updates in time as we improve this…

Hi Jairo! How are you? You can't create your own work categories (that's what these are called) but you can remove those that you don't need, so long you don't need the request types in those groups nor any of the specific functionality available in those work categories ("Incidents" offers integrations with Opsgenie,…

HI @Jack Brickey , Thanks so much for taking the time to ask this question. I actually work with the team that built the feature and we're looking to get feedback on it. If you are able, we'd love it if you could complete this quick survey, or just let me know if you'd like to have a chat. We are aware that the feature is…

Hi @Dylan Keyer , Thanks for your question, a very good one. Am I right in assuming this is a Team-Managed service desk (Next Gen) project? If that is the case, it is not currently possible to add more fields per project but I can certainly look at how we might increase that limit. I definitely agree that it is a pain…