one rule triggers another rule directly

[Eric Jahn]

Can the 'Then' action of a rule directly specify another rule to be triggered (i.e. daisy-chain rules)?

The reason I am asking, is that I have a global automation rule where a source ticket's status change, changes the fields in a destination ticket.  I have a second project-level automation that listens for that same field to change.

When a user directly/manually changes the field change, the second project-level automation is triggered, as expected.

However, when the global automation changes the same field normally that triggers the second project-level automation, the second project-level automation is *not* triggered as expected.

Can automated events not "daisy-chain" to trigger subsequent automations?  I would think they should.

[Bill Sheboy · Accepted solution]

Hi @Eric Jahn 

No, a rule cannot call another rule.
Yes, a rule can trigger another rule through its actions.

This second behavior is disabled, by default, to prevent looping and run-away situations.

When you want the actions of one rule to trigger another, the "downstream" rule which will be triggered needs to have the option "Allow Rule Trigger" enabled in its details at the top of the rule.

Consider side-effects and impacts of doing this, as other rules could now trigger such rules.

Kind regards,
Bill

[Eric Jahn]

Thank you @Bill Sheboy for the clarification!

[Cash Coyne]

@Bill Sheboy , could you accomplish this by using a Send Web Request component as an action and then have another rule that is triggered based on an incoming webhook?

Then, to expand on that, with the Send Web Request, you have the checkbox "Delay execution of subsequent rule actions until we've received a response for this web request".  If you check that box, then would you in effect be using the second rule as a subroutine?  Where you use the Custom Data option and pass "variables" in the POST body?

[Bill Sheboy]

Hi @Cash Coyne 

I recall community posts of others trying that approach, although I have not tried it.  As I am now on a free license I would be reluctant to experiment with it...given the packaging limit changes :^)

My hypothesis is such a solution approach could lead to either deadlocking and / or service limit problems if there was a rule "callback" error.  It is unclear to me if wait time for the "delay execution of subsequent rule actions..." option is included in the daily processing limit per 12 hours but the text seems indicate it is included.

Other work-arounds I have seen are:

• Use fields like posted comments as semaphores to trigger a chain of rules.  This could run into the looping service limit.
• For more complex solutions not supported by rule code functions (e.g., sequential processing), write an external service to perform the work using REST API functions, and call that from the automation rule one time.

Kind regards,
Bill