Set multiple values for status property - allow more than one project role to comment

[Jeremias Renner]

Hi, I have the following use case:

In our Jira Service Management project, we don't want customers to comment anymore when a ticket hits the "Done" status. I found that I can turn off commenting completely using a workflow status property. This also means that agents can't comment any longer either. I want agents and administrators to still be able to comment, while customers can't.

Approach:
I would use the property jira.permission.comment.projectrole and set it with my role id for the Service Desk Team which is 402. This works fine.

Problem:
I can't add this a second time for the project role Administrators (with role ID 102) because jira does not let me add a second property with the same key. I have tried to use comma-seperated (with and without whitespace), but it won't work.

Question:
Can I add a second property value, if so, how?

Documentation:

https://support.atlassian.com/jira-cloud-administration/docs/use-workflow-properties/

Known Workaround:
Obviously I can go ahead and just give the administrators the role "Service Desk Team" as well so they have both roles.
--> I'd prefer not to do that though, also we might have different roles in the future that can't be added as Service Desk Team, so trying to clarify this.

[Cyrille Martin · Accepted solution]

Hi @Jeremias Renner 

I found this trick, It may help to add several time the same properties :

Add a dot number at the end

in your case add 2 properties:

jira.permission.comment.projectrole.1         402

jira.permission.comment.projectrole.2.       102

Regards,

[Jeremias Renner]

Wow, works like a charm! Thanks a lot @Cyrille Martin 

@Atlassian this should definetely be included in the documentation.

Btw, when Googling your answer because I was curious where you got it from, I found a similar request here (with the same answer:)

https://community.atlassian.com/t5/Jira-questions/Re-Re-I-m-trying-to-use-workflow-properties-to-limit-wh/qaq-p/2449897/comment-id/588417#M588417