Automation Rule running on first field of many field update

[Adam Evans]

I have an automation rule running that reads:

When value changes for Component/s 

and Component/s field is X

and Support Team field is empty

then set Support Team field to A.

Our workflow has a step where both of these fields have the ability to be set at the same time.  When they are both set at once the rule fires as  Component/s changes and it still thinks the team field is empty.  It appears Component/s is first alphabetically and being executed on in the context that is the only field updated when it isn't.  Is there a way for the automation rule to take into consideration all field updates that were made at one time before executing?  

[Bill Sheboy]

Hi @Adam Evans 

It is likely this a timing issue rather than the alphabetic ordering of the fields.

You could try a work-around by adding a Re-fetch action to your rule, immediately after the trigger and before the condition tests.  That action will slow the rule down by about one second and re-load the data before proceeding.  (Adding a Re-fetch is also a good idea whenever using the Issue Created trigger...for the same reasons I noted.)

If this does not help, you may need to rethink your approach so there is one-and-only-one event that could trigger the rule.

Kind regards,
Bill

[Suzi Firth]

Hi Adam,

I believe you should be using an If / else Block as your condition based on what you are trying to achieve but I think from what you've said you may have set up differently.

1. Trigger should be When Value changed for Components
2. Then New Condition
3. Then If / Else Block
4. Run Actions if All conditions Match
5. Issue fields condition 
   1. Field: Components
   2. Condition: Equals
   3. Value : X
6. AND
7. Issue Field condition
8. Support Team Field - Condition : is empty
9. Save
10. Select New Component
11. New Action
12. Edit Issue. Select field Support Team field and then select the value and Save

Should look something like this

Suzi

[Adam Evans]

Great Idea Suzi.  Unfortunately, that isn't working either.  I think Bill has it right as a timing issue and not necessarily the value evaluation.