Uploaded image for project: 'Jira Software Data Center'
  1. Jira Software Data Center
  2. JSWSERVER-25150

When moving an Epic to a different Initiative, maintain the link in JIRA

    • 0
    • 2
    • 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 Portfolio Server. Using JIRA Portfolio Cloud? See the corresponding suggestion.

      In Portfolio, when a user:

      Creates an Epic X inside an Initiative Y

      , then

      Adds them to Agile via the "Create and link new issues" command (in the Initiative dropdown)

      Portfolio instructs Agile to create is a 'X blocks Y' link.

      Now, in Portfolio, after some planning session where X is deemed more appropriate under a different Initiative Z, the user:

      Moves Epic X to Initiative Z

      Now, Portfolio does not instruct Agile to set any links.
      Ideally, it trashes the 'X blocks Y' link and add an 'X blocks Z' link OR updates 'X blocks Y' to 'X blocks Z'.

      Otherwise, we have a false positive:

      X blocks Y is wrong

      AND a false negative:

      X should block Z, but it doesn't

      This dependency is extremely important for all teammates that live in Agile and not Portfolio. It also adversely affects Agile-based plugins that leverage links (there are many).

      Manual management of this is excessively time-consuming after each long-term planning round, because long-term planning is (meant to be) done in Portfolio.

          Form Name

            [JSWSERVER-25150] When moving an Epic to a different Initiative, maintain the link in JIRA

            Dear all,

            I would like to inform you that this issue in the project JPOSERVER is being migrated to the new project JSWSERVER. Your votes and comments will remain unchanged.
            Our team at Atlassian will continue to monitor this issue for further updates, so please feel free to share your thoughts or feedback in the comments.

            Sincerely,
            Aakrity Tibrewal
            Jira DC

            Aakrity Tibrewal added a comment - Dear all, I would like to inform you that this issue in the project JPOSERVER is being migrated to the new project JSWSERVER. Your votes and comments will remain unchanged. Our team at Atlassian will continue to monitor this issue for further updates, so please feel free to share your thoughts or feedback in the comments. Sincerely, Aakrity Tibrewal Jira DC

            MartinL added a comment -

            Hi!
            This would be of great value for us in large JIRA instances!
            Best

            MartinL added a comment - Hi! This would be of great value for us in large JIRA instances! Best

            No sweat Ziko! This is now properly searchable through JQL, but still isn't a proper Issue Link – 

            Steve Behnke [DiscoverEquip.com] added a comment - - edited No sweat Ziko! This is now properly searchable through JQL, but still isn't a proper Issue Link – 

            @sfbehnke I neglected to thank you for identifying the problem. Thanks!

            Ziko Rajabali added a comment - @sfbehnke I neglected to thank you for identifying the problem. Thanks!

            zrajabali it looks like it's just using the "Issue ID" right now, not the more friendly "Issue Key" which you're using to reference.

            In this example, LDP-4 is an Initiative and LADP-5 is an Epic.

            Query Status
            issue.property[jpo-issue-properties].parent_id in (LDP-4)
            no
            issue.property[jpo-issue-properties].parent_id in (50217)
            yes

            I am able to see this information myself by navigating to the properties via the API, so I can see what is stored against the issue. Example URL: https://example.com/rest/api/2/issue/LADP-5/properties/

            The following was returned to me –

            {
              self: "https://example.com/rest/api/2/issue/21481/properties/jpo-issue-properties",
              key: "jpo-issue-properties"
            }

            Navigating to that URL provides me the values I am looking for –

            {
              themes: "2",
              parent_id: "50217"
            }

            This seems to be 1-1 tied to the "issueproperties" JQL work-around.

            Steven F Behnke added a comment - zrajabali it looks like it's just using the "Issue ID" right now, not the more friendly "Issue Key" which you're using to reference. In this example, LDP-4 is an Initiative and LADP-5 is an Epic . Query Status issue.property[jpo-issue-properties].parent_id in (LDP-4) no issue.property[jpo-issue-properties].parent_id in (50217) yes I am able to see this information myself by navigating to the properties via the API, so I can see what is stored against the issue. Example URL: https://example.com/rest/api/2/issue/LADP-5/properties/ The following was returned to me – { self: "https://example.com/rest/api/2/issue/21481/properties/jpo-issue-properties", key: "jpo-issue-properties" } Navigating to that URL provides me the values I am looking for – { themes: "2", parent_id: "50217" } This seems to be 1-1 tied to the "issueproperties" JQL work-around.

            @Albert I'm running JIRA Cloud. This was my first time attempting to use it so I don't know if it recently ceased working or never worked at all. It is I'll check into Atlassian answers as you suggest.

            Ziko Rajabali added a comment - @Albert I'm running JIRA Cloud. This was my first time attempting to use it so I don't know if it recently ceased working or never worked at all. It is I'll check into Atlassian answers as you suggest.

            Hi zrajabali,

            the parent property definitely did not change in Portfolio. It is, however, possible that something in JIRA / JQL has changed.

            • Have you been able to successfully query that before?
            • When did it stop working?
            • Are you running Cloud or BTF?

            As I mentioned in one of my previous comments, that syntax is not officially supported and it is not part of any public API we cannot guarantee this syntax will be supported in the future. If your query just stopped working from one day to the next it might very well be related to a JIRA update and changes around querying issue properties (assuming you run in Cloud, otherwise you'd have to manually have upgraded to a new JIRA version). You might have a look at Atlassian answers and check if there's any questions around changes to querying issue properties.

            Best regards,
            Albert

            Albert Kavelar added a comment - Hi zrajabali , the parent property definitely did not change in Portfolio. It is, however, possible that something in JIRA / JQL has changed. Have you been able to successfully query that before? When did it stop working? Are you running Cloud or BTF? As I mentioned in one of my previous comments, that syntax is not officially supported and it is not part of any public API we cannot guarantee this syntax will be supported in the future. If your query just stopped working from one day to the next it might very well be related to a JIRA update and changes around querying issue properties (assuming you run in Cloud, otherwise you'd have to manually have upgraded to a new JIRA version). You might have a look at Atlassian answers and check if there's any questions around changes to querying issue properties. Best regards, Albert

            @albert With the recent changes to Live Plans, has the Initiative (or other parent) issue property changed? I can't seem to gain any results when using issue.property[jpo-issue-properties].parent_id=XYZ-1234

            Ziko Rajabali added a comment - @albert With the recent changes to Live Plans, has the Initiative (or other parent) issue property changed? I can't seem to gain any results when using issue.property [jpo-issue-properties] .parent_id=XYZ-1234

            Yeah for sure. All my concerns are alleviated. Thanks @Albert!

            Ziko Rajabali added a comment - Yeah for sure. All my concerns are alleviated. Thanks @Albert!

            Hi zrajabali, since I didn't here back from you in the last few days I assume you are fine with me turning this into a suggestion. I am happy to change it back if you would rather keep it as a bug, just let me know.

            Best regards,
            Albert

            Albert Kavelar added a comment - Hi zrajabali , since I didn't here back from you in the last few days I assume you are fine with me turning this into a suggestion. I am happy to change it back if you would rather keep it as a bug, just let me know. Best regards, Albert

              Unassigned Unassigned
              b5ed1f307a36 Ziko Rajabali
              Votes:
              16 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              13 Start watching this issue

                Created:
                Updated: