How to further investigate and resolve field layout scheme integrity problems?

[Chris Mann]

I have run the field layout scheme integrity check and recieve these errros.

However, there is no clue on how to find what they are, where they are, etc.

Any suggestions on how to track them down and resolve them?

Also, clicking on the link the JRA-4423 just reports that I donot have permission to see that ticket!

Check Field Layout Scheme Integrity Check field layout schemes for references to deleted custom fields

ERROR: The field layout item with id 10843 has a reference to the deleted custom field with id customfield_12000. (JRA-4423)

ERROR: The field layout item with id 10844 has a reference to the deleted custom field with id customfield_12002. (JRA-4423)

ERROR: The field layout item with id 10845 has a reference to the deleted custom field with id customfield_12001. (JRA-4423)

ERROR: The field layout item with id 10846 has a reference to the deleted custom field with id customfield_12004. (JRA-4423)

ERROR: The field layout item with id 10847 has a reference to the deleted custom field with id customfield_12003. (JRA-4423)

ERROR: The field layout item with id 10849 has a reference to the deleted custom field with id customfield_12005. (JRA-4423)

[Marios Andriotelis]

I faced it today, and my solution was:

• Integrity check run fix
• Disable all the plugins, enable one by one the apps
• Reboot
• Full re-index

I 've done those and it worked, I hope I helped

[Daniel Ebers]

Hi Chris,

I think I can come up with the current link:

• Deleting a custom field doesn't delete its references in field layout schemes
  https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRASERVER-4423

There it reads:

This problem is detected by the JIRA Integrity Checker. If you receive these errors, select Fix to fix them safely.

A backup - just in case - is never a bad idea, though.

As to the why there is an entry from MattS which reads:

[...] it could be that there were entries in the customfield table but the plugin that provided the custom fields type for those fields is not longer present

Regards,
Daniel