I'm having an issue in Jira Service Management where adding fields to a new request type affects all my existing request types.
For example, I have 10 different request types like Complaint, Dispute, Compliance, CRM, etc. I recently created a new request type called Legal and added around 15 new fields to its request form. However, these 15 fields now appear in the issue view of all my other request types (Complaint, Dispute, etc.), not in their request forms, but in their issue views.
This has caused a big mess, and now I have to manually remove these fields from each issue view of the other request types. Is there a way to add fields to a new request type without affecting the existing ones? How can I manage this better?
Hi @Leon Gumba
If all request type shared the same issue type, if you add fields to a screen for 1 request type, it will add for all of them because they are sharing the same issue type so same screen scheme. You could create a new issue type with new screen just for legal, and map this request type to the new issue type.
Regards
@Florian Bonniec thank you for your input!
Yes, it turned out that all of the request types were tied to the same issue type, which is why the new fields appeared in all the old request types.
I have now created new issue types and associated them with the respective request types, plus I created new screens for those.
Awesome, thank you so much for your help!
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
I appreciate the description of the mechanics around why this happens, but this is still a horrible behaviour.
Request Types allow you to create unique forms and issue views for tickets that share the same issue type by design. The design philosophy here is that JSM requires the ability to present different fields for the same issue type, because creating new issue types for every type of request would be unworkable.
Therefore suggesting that new fields are automatically added to a request type because they share the same issue type, while correct, makes no sense. We spend a lot of time going through pre-existing request types to remove these unwanted fields.
Apologies @Florian Bonniec I'm not saying you're wrong or that you can change the behaviour, but this functionality is painful. I'm working with Atlassian to open a feature request to change this.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.
Online forums and learning are now in one easy-to-use experience.
By continuing, you accept the updated Community Terms of Use and acknowledge the Privacy Policy. Your public name, photo, and achievements may be publicly visible and available in search engines.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.