How to trigger automation action if comment contains user mention (@mention)?

[Michael Buechele]

Hi,

I try to trigger a notification only when a comment does (or does not) contain a @mention.

What I tried so far:

Unfortunately, this does not work.

Any ideas?

Thanks,
Michael

[Alex F · Accepted solution]

Hi Michael, I created the similar topic and at the moment I found part of the answer. To trigger an action when a comment contains (or does not) a mention you should use the following regular expression:

\[~accountid:.+\]

Finally, if you want a rule to trigger when a mention is present in a comment body, it should look like this:

[Petr A]

Hi @Alex F ! Tell me if you can create a condition that will track the comment for the words "thank you". For example, if the comment begins with "Thank you". Or it only consists of "thank you".

Thanks))

[Alex F]

Hi @Petr A! I believe you should use something like this:

[Chuks Ekwere]

Hi @Alex F - how do I configure this to work for when a specific user is mentioned in the comment?

cheers

[Aleksander Altberg]

@Alex F I'm curious about this too.

I'm interested in triggering automations based on specific user mentions in comments.

How does the \[~accountid:.+\] syntax work, exactly? And is there a way to specify and check for a specific user mention?

[Alex F]

Hi guys,

It's enough simple - you should use the following expression in your Advanced compare condition step:

\[~accountid:ACCOUNT_ID\]

Where ACCOUNT_ID is the identifier of the account, at the mention of which, you want to perform some action. For instance, it may look like this:

\[~accountid:5bed54d183247b27210b85a5\]

You can easily find the desired ACCOUNT_ID, just go to your list of users in Jira, open the profile of the user you want, and copy the identifier in the URL bar, which looks something like this:

As a result, your condition should look like this:

P.S. You can also do this not using the regex match, as there is no need to search for all occurrences of the pattern, but you won't really notice any difference, so this is the solution you can use.

[Michael Buechele · Accepted solution]

Thanks Alex!
Your solution works perfectly for case "contain".

And this is my solution for case "does not contain":

[Alex F]

Hi Michael, you can find the answer here.