You're on your way to the next level! Join the Kudos program to earn points and save your progress.
Level 1: Seed
25 / 150 points
1 badge earned
Challenges come and go, but your rewards stay with you. Do more to earn more!
What goes around comes around! Share the love by gifting kudos to your peers.
Keep earning points to reach the top of the leaderboard. It resets every quarter so you always have a chance!
Join now to unlock these features and more
That title is a bit confusing, I know. but we're looking to see if there is a way to setup quickfilters so they are treated as OR statements instead of AND. eg- if I select quickfilters that are 'assignee was Person X' and another that is 'assignee was Person Y', we'd like to see cards that were assigned to EITHER Person X OR Person Y instead of only cards that were assigned to BOTH resources. Is this possible somehow?
FYI, there's an open feature request for this. It had an odd name and it was hard to find to I updated the name and description a bit.
Hi @Mark Segall ,
Let's say we have several quick filters in a board, and we want to be able to click 2 filters at the same time but see and "OR" functionality instead of "AND" only.
* One solution would be to select an "OR" option when the quick filter is being created
* Another solution would be to put an option on the board to combine "quick filters" by "OR" statement
Do you think it would be a big hassle to implement such a thing?
The quick filters work as an AND because they're only useful for drilling down if they work together.
Your need is easy to meet though - create a quick filter with JQL that says "assignee was Person X or assignee was Person Y"
90% of the time it is better to have quick filters be OR instead of AND.
Almost every quick filter I have seen within the same board was to select one value of a field (usually assignee). On my team's kanban board we have ten team members, each of which have a quick filter. Then we have a quick filters for "unassigned", "Only My Issues" (which is redundant because you can just select your own filter), and "Recently Updated".
Of all of those, only "Recently Updated" should be AND'ed. All the rest should be OR'ed.
IMO each quick filter should have an operator field to say whether it should be AND or OR.
No, it's not. The quick filters are for drilling down into a board, de-cluttering it of the items you are not interested in.
99% of the time, you would want to do that with an AND, not an OR.
I'm with you on that flag for AND/OR toggling, defaulted to AND of course, to support what the filters are for. It would be an extra function that would expand the usefulness of quick filters into areas other than drilling down.
Because I've been working with loads of people who use this type of software for over two decades.
@Nic Brough -Adaptavist- even if I take your arguments as valid for every "agile" team setup. (and there can be many you cant know all... stop thinking you know best)
For example the number one usecase in almost every team uses is to quickly filter by User for a daily standup for example. Always having to select user 1 then deselect user 1 and select user 2 it just takes a lot of time and the UI is not particularly fast to react this is just bad design even with an AND relationship.
I would agree with:
@David Merrill that each quickfilter on its own should decide with a "TOGGLE" if it is a AND or an OR concatenated filter. Additionally I would even go as far as to say that each filter should even get a "STANDALONE" option so that if you select it it deselects all other filters...
Think about what your community wants and not what makes sense to you... that is one of the reasons why Atlassian is loosing its user bases / not getting new smaller companies onboarded.
Leaving only the big companies who cant go away from it at least for now....
Innovation should be done: https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JSWSERVER-20741
And/Or won't solve that problem, so I'm not sure why you mention it here.
I am thinking about what my community wants, did you read any of the earlier conversations?
Actually there is a way to obtain the result you want, but it's unpractical if you have many choices (people). That is to write the filters to EXCLUDE instead of include for example a person.
So instead of a "John: Assignee = John" filter create a "Hide John: Assignee != John" filter.
This way you HIDE the people you don't want to see and by hiding or not hiding you can combine any people you like.