Any update on this request?

is it possible for you to share this script. I have a real nead to clear issue cloned because i have many specific field that have to ne eset .

I use ScriptRunner to clear fields when an issue is clone cloned. I assume that using global/project automation could do the same thing.

This feature would be extremely helpful.  It would be great to be able to exclude fields from being cloned at the field level.  

Floored this currently does not exist.

I vote YES on implementing this feature. 

As futile as this seems, I definitely VOTE for this feature.  Since I have a couple of other requests that have been 'gathering interest' for many, many months, I am pessimistic of this happening.  However, I will hope for the best!  Thanks for the consideration!

This would be immensely useful to make sure our controls we have in place (gates for custom field validations) are adhered to.

Implementing this functionality would be greatly appreciated by all Jira administrators. Please get it done.

We also need the ability to Clone regardless of the CREATE workflow condition.  We have implemented some conditions in the CREATE workflow to enforce the provision of information in some of the fields.  Currently, Cloning is unable for projects that have imposed field requirements for the issue creation. At least provide a pre Clone screen to allow user to update the fields required in the ticket to proceed.

Super keen if we could get this feature added. Will help from an admin point of view greatly. We make use of loads of validated custom fields which of course all kept skipped due to already copying the field values for the newly cloned story, ultimately bypassing any validation required for new stories.

I agree on the comments above

• The ability to clear fields after cloning is desperately required. We use JIRA to manage our project, deployments, planning
• When the record has been cloned, it contains information for the old record that is not valid for the new record and thus take away all the validations we have put in place during an issue creation
• It leaves the system in limbo with no way of housekeeping
• The history is also retained and links which arent necessary are kept and data integrity is questionable
• It links the cloned epic automatically which is also not desirable by default

Emre Toptanci, i completely agree with you. If we had at least the Validators, it would already be a huge step forward.

Having the option of using conditions and validations on Edit operation would introduce a hugely powerful and flexible feature. This will save us from defining tens of local transitions.

I would make this request a little bit more general.

At the moment links to not carry any semantics although the link names would imply that there is a logical relation between two issues. In the same way as workflows (and with that conditions, validators, post actions) can be assigned to any project, it should be possible to

• limit the listed links per project
• apply semantics to link types

This could be done using "Link schemes".

The clone action is just one example that implies a logic. We handle the cleaning of field values by using the "New" --> Status "New" transition and adding a few post-actions to clean up some fields.
However there are more default links that should carry semantics, for example duplicate. This could for example automatically follow the states of the duplicate master (if I as a project admin define it that way).

I agree with Kevin. I need to clear custom fields when an issue is cloned.

The ability to clear fields after cloning is desperately required. We use JIRA to manage our deployments - we synchronize information from another system into JIRA to track the status of these requests. When the record has been cloned, it contains information for the old record that is not valid for the new record. We would very mc like to be able to clear these fields on cloning.

Using Minyaa Suite plugin, you are able to perform such control on Edit operation by implement Global Actions.
See documentation and do not hesitate to Try Minyaa,

Vincent

I wrote validators to asure that the values for certain fields are entered in a given format. These validators avoid that the user enters wrong values during the workflow actions. But I have no chance to avoid that the user uses the edit action to enter invalid values afterwards. Therefore I need to do validation for the values entered during the edit operation.