Automation: Request Participant field --> Custom object field

[Chase Ketchum]

Hello Jira Community,

One of my automations seems to be limited in its functionality and I'd like to request your assistance.

My goal for the automation is: 

• When users are added to the 'Requested Participants' field, a matching asset object is automatically populated in a custom field.

I have successfully been able to populate a single matching object. However, errors occur with the automation when multiple 'requested participants' are entered and the custom object field already has a single object populated and then tries to populate the additional matching participant objects.

(Error Audit:  Bad Request - No fields or field values to edit for issues (could be due to some field values not existing in a given project)

Here's a look at the custom object field:

Here's a look at the automation:

The 'Atlassian User' is a User-type object attribute.

I believe the issue is with the syntax in automation that is present in the image above.

Thoughts and ideas on how I can populate multiple objects?

[Joseph Chung Yin]

@Chase Ketchum -

One possible thing that you may need to look into is that "Requested Participants" can contain one or more users, so you will need to ensure that you are looping through the entire list in your automation rule.

Can you also share more information on your automation?  One other thing I saw from your image - your custom field is named "Additional Employee(s)" but you are trying to edit the field named "Additional Participants".  Instead of using the field name, can you try to use {{issue.customfield_xxxxx.....}}.  Last thing, can you confirm that the field in question is already mapped to your project.

Please advise.

Best, Joseph Chung Yin

Jira/JSM Functional Lead, Global Technology Applications Team

Viasat Inc.

[Chase Ketchum]

@Joseph Chung Yin

Note that the automation works correctly with a single match but breaks when trying to add more than one.

You mentioned there was a discrepancy in the names, and I fixed that issue. The configuration scheme was not updated when the field name was changed, therefore I have now updated it to reflect the change properly.

The field is properly mapped.

Here is a screenshot of the other elements of the automation: