How do I control comments added to linked JSD issues when status changes?

[Anthony Kylitis]

When I have two issues that are linked together, changing the status on one issue adds a comment to the linked issue. I don't mind this happening, I just don't know where to control it. The problem is that the actor behind the comment is my account, not the person who changed the status of the linked issue.

I checked and I don't have an automation rule doing this. I also checked my Post Functions on my transition and I find nothing there but the default function.

The comment seems to only happen when resolved. No comments are added when transitioning to another status.

Any idea what might be causing this?

[Anthony Kylitis · Accepted solution]

Support helped me find the issue. It was a Legacy Automation rule that was getting me. Apparently, it's a default rule that gets introduced. I deleted the rule and added it back as a new Automation rule. I guess I didn't check Legacy Automation since I figured they were discontinuing this feature.

[Chris Buzon]

I realize you've said you don't have an automation rule doing this, but it's possible someone else does.  You will want to make sure you're checking the "all rules" section, since that interface defaults to Global, which may not be where it is located.

Through the project settings tab (near the bottom) you can also find all the "automation" rules that affect a project, which might help you narrow that down some more.

[Anthony Kylitis]

Thanks Chris. I've checked under Global Rules and All Rules and see nothing that might be causing this. I've done this through both the Project Settings > Automation screen and the System > Automation rules screen.

It does seem to be a global thing though because if I transition an issue in a Jira project to a resolved status, it will add the comment to the linked issue in a JSD project.

[Anthony Kylitis]

Here's a screenshot. You can see it also introduces some text in the comment that says "A related issue has been resolved. Please check this issue for more details." Clearly this would be easy to locate if it was an automation rule doing it, correct?