Incoming webhook not edit issue fields in branch JQL, Why?

[Marcos Milanesio]

Hello!

I have an Incoming webhook executed with "Issues provided by running the following JQL search" option. Definition JQL: "key = MPP-16"

We update start date on this issue in a first component edit issue, MPP-16 edited okay!

Then, execute the branch FOR: JQL "key in (MPP-16,MPP-17)"

And edit duedate in both issues, on MPP-17 this work, but on MPP-16 not. 

Can someone tell me why?

Screens:

[Marcos Milanesio · Accepted solution]

NOTE:

The fields used are just an example to show the problem, they are not the real business problem.

[Jehan Bhathena]

Hi @Marcos Milanesio ,

Does the Automation rule's log show any clue?

[Marcos Milanesio]

Hi @Jehan Bhathena 

This is the log: 

[Jehan Bhathena]

HI @Marcos Milanesio ,

I created a similar rule at my end, and turns out I face the same behavior.

In order to work around it, I kept the JQL for the incoming webhook, and the Branch condition to be the same :

I did not find any documentation that mentions this exclusion or vague behavior, but I did find a few old community posts that MIGHT point to the same thing :

• https://community.atlassian.com/t5/Automation-questions/Branching-on-JQL-failes-for-Incoming-Webhook-Trigger-rule/qaq-p/2016563#M3890
• https://community.atlassian.com/t5/Automation-questions/Processing-misses-during-quot-Issues-provided-by-running-the/qaq-p/1674423#M1475

Tagging @Bill Sheboy, since he provided some good inputs to the other threads.

[Bill Sheboy]

Hi @Marcos Milanesio and @Jehan Bhathena 

That symptom is curious...

I have observed there are some single-issue related triggers, which later in a rule exclude the trigger issue from some branches (like on JQL), which I hypothesize is to prevent errors / loops.  Although I have not found this documented for automation rules, and so I would welcome an Atlassian employee to confirm this...

Marcos, a work-around for your scenario is to first update the trigger issue directly with an edit and then branch to the other issue.

Kind regards,
Bill

[Marcos Milanesio]

Hi @Bill Sheboy 

The example that is exposed is very simple, just to show the exclusion behavior. The workaround that you propose is correct, but it would not apply to the real business case we are working on.

Thank you so much anyway!!

MM

[Marcos Milanesio]

Hi @Jehan Bhathena 

What you propose is correct, we tried it and it works. When applying it in our solution we made some adjustments to optimize it. This and making an adjustment to the approach to the problem allowed us to achieve it.

Thanks a lot @Jehan Bhathena  @Bill Sheboy 

[Jehan Bhathena]

Hi @Marcos Milanesio 

Glad to have helped out :-)

Would it possible for you to share a little more insight into what changes you made at your end to make the solution work? Perhaps It might come in handy for us too.