Uploaded image for project: 'Jira Data Center'
  1. Jira Data Center
  2. JRASERVER-47584

As a JIRA Core user, I would like to have an 'Issue Link Relationship' custom field type

XMLWordPrintable

    • Icon: Suggestion Suggestion
    • Resolution: Won't Fix
    • None
    • None
    • We collect Jira feedback from various sources, and we evaluate what we've collected when planning our product roadmap. To understand how this piece of feedback will be reviewed, see our Implementation of New Features Policy.

      NOTE: This suggestion is for JIRA Server. Using JIRA Cloud? See the corresponding suggestion.

      Problem Definition

      As a JIRA Core user I would like to have an 'Issue Link Relationship' custom field type available with the same behavior as the 'Epic Link Relationship' custom field type (which is not configurable via the JIRA custom fields administration screens).

      This would be especially helpful for issues with too many Issue Links in which the desired link might be hard to identify.

      Workarounds

      • Use Issue Links.
      • Use a URL Field custom field.

          Form Name

            [JRASERVER-47584] As a JIRA Core user, I would like to have an 'Issue Link Relationship' custom field type

            Joseph Adams added a comment -

            Re-raised: https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRASERVER-71109

            Joseph Adams added a comment - Re-raised:  https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/JRASERVER-71109

            Joseph Adams added a comment -

            Agree with all of the above and would suggest this is re-opened (if anyone it Atlassian is still watching - otherwise perhaps create a new issue).

            Not sure why the coding behind the Epic Link field was created only when there are several other levels to an issue hierarchy that would all require and benefit from similar linkage. This seems like a fundamental piece of functionality. 

            Would love to know more about the timeline of the Epic Link field and whether it proved too complex to repeat, ie. MVP for repeating across other levels and issue types drastically fell.

            Please re-open or provide better workarounds.

            Joseph Adams added a comment - Agree with all of the above and would suggest this is re-opened (if anyone it Atlassian is still watching - otherwise perhaps create a new issue). Not sure why the coding behind the Epic Link field was created only when there are several other levels to an issue hierarchy that would all require and benefit from similar linkage. This seems like a fundamental piece of functionality.  Would love to know more about the timeline of the Epic Link field and whether it proved too complex to repeat, ie. MVP for repeating across other levels and issue types drastically fell. Please re-open or provide better workarounds.

            Stuart Mitcham added a comment -

            I completely agree with the posters above.

            As suggested by Atlassian on numerous posts and blogs on Scrum management, I have created an Initiatives level above Epics in order to better manage our (huge) project.

            It seems crazy to me that it is not possible to then add a field to the Epic creation screen that allows me to associate the Epic with it's parent Initiative.

            Issue Links and URL fields are NOT a suitable solution.

            This issue was not resolved. It appears to have been thrown in the "Too Hard Basket"

            Stuart Mitcham added a comment - I completely agree with the posters above. As suggested by Atlassian on numerous posts and blogs on Scrum management, I have created an Initiatives level above Epics in order to better manage our (huge) project. It seems crazy to me that it is not possible to then add a field to the Epic creation screen that allows me to associate the Epic with it's parent Initiative. Issue Links and URL fields are NOT a suitable solution. This issue was not resolved. It appears to have been thrown in the "Too Hard Basket"
            Katherine Yabut made changes -
            Workflow Original: JAC Suggestion Workflow [ 3056485 ] New: JAC Suggestion Workflow 3 [ 3691598 ]
            Status Original: RESOLVED [ 5 ] New: Closed [ 6 ]

            Alex Smirnov added a comment -

            Looking for a story link custom field as well. Please reopen

            Alex Smirnov added a comment - Looking for a story link custom field as well. Please reopen
            Owen made changes -
            Workflow Original: Confluence Workflow - Public Facing v4 [ 2599522 ] New: JAC Suggestion Workflow [ 3056485 ]

            Michael Golla added a comment -

            Not sure why this was closed. Looks like the agent who closed it didn't even read the issue.

            Michael Golla added a comment - Not sure why this was closed. Looks like the agent who closed it didn't even read the issue.
            Michael Golla made changes -
            Link New: This issue relates to JSWSERVER-7203 [ JSWSERVER-7203 ]
            Rachel Lin (Inactive) made changes -
            Workflow Original: JIRA PM Feature Request Workflow v2 - TEMP [ 2584693 ] New: Confluence Workflow - Public Facing v4 [ 2599522 ]
            Status Original: Closed [ 6 ] New: Resolved [ 5 ]

            NCATS LAB added a comment -

            This suggestion was closed, but the reason did not address the OP's need.

            Issue links are not anywhere as useful as the Epic links, nor sub-task links.

            Sub-tasks are not available to Customers in Service Desk, so are not an option in that environment.

            Epic links are limited to a single issue type.

            A workaround would be to offer a means of creating additional Epic-type Issue Types.

            The other option would be to introduce more functionality to Issue links so they can be managed from the parent issue as Epic links and Sub-tasks are.

            The suggestion that URL Custom fields meets this need is incorrect, as it only works with URLs and not Issue Keys. It also is just a list, which does not allow for management of the issue.

            Lastly, Issue links do not provide a single one-to-one relationship of Parent to Child as the other options do. Issue links go two ways essentially, and you can link to multiple other Issues. This creates a web-like relationship as opposed to the Parent-Child relationship needed.

            NCATS LAB added a comment - This suggestion was closed, but the reason did not address the OP's need. Issue links are not anywhere as useful as the Epic links, nor sub-task links. Sub-tasks are not available to Customers in Service Desk, so are not an option in that environment. Epic links are limited to a single issue type. A workaround would be to offer a means of creating additional Epic-type Issue Types. The other option would be to introduce more functionality to Issue links so they can be managed from the parent issue as Epic links and Sub-tasks are. The suggestion that URL Custom fields meets this need is incorrect, as it only works with URLs and not Issue Keys. It also is just a list, which does not allow for management of the issue. Lastly, Issue links do not provide a single one-to-one relationship of Parent to Child as the other options do. Issue links go two ways essentially, and you can link to multiple other Issues. This creates a web-like relationship as opposed to the Parent-Child relationship needed.

              Unassigned Unassigned
              dconrad Danilo Conrad
              Votes:
              1 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              12 Start watching this issue

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: