How to make a security scheme common to a task and its sub-task?

[Tony Montana]

I have security scheme for task:

hr_viewers

User custom field value (Technical Experts) (Delete) User custom field value (SMD) (Delete) Project lead (Delete) Reporter (Delete) Current assignee (Delete) Project Role (Project Managers) (Delete) Project Role (Developers) (Delete)

but subtasks doesnt has this custom fields, and if we create subtask under task this filed cant copy own information to a subtask. How to make a security scheme common to a task and its sub-task?

[Nic Brough -Adaptavist-]

You don't need to do anything. 

The security level for a sub-task is inherited directly and automatically from the parent (and the scheme applies to every issue in the project)

[Tony Montana]

@Nic Brough -Adaptavist- 

Yes, but I do not ask about it. People who access the request under this scheme will not see the subtask. Or am I wrong?

We're talked about custom fields, which are cant auto copy from parent issue

[Nic Brough -Adaptavist-]

I think you have misunderstood.  The short answer to your question is actually "it already is common, sort of"

A security scheme applies to the issues.  When a sub-task belongs to an issue, it takes on the same security as the parent.   It might be more clear to say it has the same visibility.  If you can see the parent, you can see the child.  If you can't see the parent, you can't see the child either.

[Tony Montana]

Okay, thank you. I will test this and update you.

[Tony Montana]

@Nic Brough -Adaptavist- 

You're wrong.

I can't see subtasks under other user if set security level

User TEST from field SMD

User TEST if I add him manualy to fileld SMD in subtask

[Tony Montana]

@Nic Brough -Adaptavist- I will create a new request so that it is more understandable

[Nic Brough -Adaptavist-]

This seems to support what I said earlier, I don't see what is inconsistent.

[Tony Montana]

Not correct question, i rebuild this

[Nic Brough -Adaptavist-]

I think it's a good question already, but asking again, phrased differently, is never a bad thing, it should help get more people to look at it.