Managing Parent Checkbox Values Based on Sub-tasks using Automation

[Anthony B]

Hello,

I recently asked a question around how to manage a Checkbox custom field in a Parent issue, based on looping through all sub-tasks.  See question here I am now looking to do the same thing but on Jira Cloud using the inbuilt Automation feature.

For background;

• For a Parent issue I have a "Delivery Team(s)" checkbox custom field
• For a sub-task issue I have a "Delivery Team" radio button custom field
• Both custom fields have the same possible set of options to choose from

Whenever the Delivery Team field is updated in the sub-task I want this to trigger a rule for the "Delivery Team(s) field in the Parent to be first cleared and then add back in the equivalent options held by each sub-task.

Is it possible to do this with Automation?

I have tried to do something like the following;

I was hoping I could reference the parent field and set it with the sub-task value.. but clearly that doesn't work.  Is there anything else that could be done to achieve my goal?

Many thanks in advance

[Anthony B · Accepted solution]

I managed to figure it out, with a slight change of direction and using a JSON function. 

So, rather than looping through the sub-tasks as a branch, instead I trigger the automation when a given sub-task is updated / deleted and then use the Parent branch.  In this branch I use a JSON function to turn all of the sub-task values for a given field (in my case "Delivery Team") into an array. 

This then gets fed into the Parent's field (which I reference using the custom field id, to avoid issues down the road with any field name changes).... and it seems to do the trick!

{
"fields": {
"customfield_100XX" : {{issue.subtasks.Delivery Team.asJsonObjectArray("value")}}
}
}

Screenshot:

[John Funk]

Hi Anthony,

Not sure this helps much, but I would question the use of the word fields in the advanced section for {{triggerIssue.fields.customfield

Why not just {{triggerIssue.customfield

[Anthony B]

Hi @John Funk thanks for responding.  I think I tried both, but ultimately I don't believe you can use a 'smart value' in that particular section - the fields must be explicitly named.