nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Multiple issue types + workflows vs. Single issue type + workflow + validations

Luis Gois

I've created an issue type that contains a single choice field (values urgent or planned) and based on which value the user chooses, it enables certain transitions in the workflow, namely an "urgent" issue skips QA validation. This actually means skipping 7 out of a 12 statuses workflow. Also, certain fields won't be mandatory either (not marked as required in the field config, but validated at a certain status transition).
But I'm hesitating about pushing this change forward or proposing a new one:
- Why not having 2 issue types, "Urgent" and "Planned", with their own screens (mandatory fields configured accordingly), with their own workflows, which wouldn't have validations now.
I find that having multiple simpler workflows are easier to maintain than a more complex workflow, with validations.
Can I have your 2 cents on this?
Cheers,
Luis

Comments

edwin vasquez_f9df79

Not sure how you solved this, but having the two issue types sounds like the less complicated way to do this for sure.