Inherit field values ​​from a linked issue

[Leonardo Zevallos Guzman]

Hello, I want to create an automation rule that when I start an incident from project A and link it to an incident from project B, the incident from project B has the same values ​​of the fields of the incident from project A. for example: "Country". I have made this rule, but it doesn't work for me.

The audit tells me this:

As you can see, the rule is executed on the same card that contains the data. I want the values ​​of MIP-1 to be replicated in BC-2. If someone can help me with that and give me detailed samples of how to configure it to do what I want it to do, that would be great.

[Trudy Claspill]

Hello @Leonardo Zevallos Guzman 

I believe your problem lies in understanding which issue is considered the "source" and which issue is considered the "destination" when an issue link is created. Refer to the information available when you using the Linked Issue trigger:

Issue linked

Rule executes when an issue is linked to another issue. {{issue}} will always refer to the source issue, so if ISSUE-A is blocked by ISSUE-B, this rule will execute on ISSUE-B. To access ISSUE-A, use {{destinationIssue}}, and to access the link type, use {{linkType}} (e.g. {{linkType}}

It doesn't matter which issue you are in when you create the link. What matters is which issue gets the Inward Description and which issue gets the Outward Description for the Link Type that you are using.

Based on the description for the trigger, the "source" issues and the one that triggers the rule to execute is the one that gets the Outward Description for the link type.

So, if you in issue MIP-1 and you create a link there to BC-2 such that in MIP-1 you see under Linked Issues "is blocked by BC-2", then BC-2 is the trigger/source issue for this rule.

What is the actual Link Type you are using? What are the Outward and Inward Descriptions for that Link type? And when you view MIP-1 what does it show under Linked Issues as the relationship to BC-2?

[Leonardo Zevallos Guzman]

I am using relates to to link both incidents, which is referred to with the question What are the external and internal descriptions for that type of link?, where I can observe it. My issue looks like this.

[Bill Sheboy]

Hi @Leonardo Zevallos Guzman 

When you describe "it doesn't work for me", what do you observe happening?  What changes are made to that field by the rule?

Are these projects company-managed or team-managed, or one of each type?  (You may find that information at the bottom-left side of the expanding area when you view a project.)

Team-managed projects use their own field configurations, and so if one (or both) of the projects are team-managed, I suspect you will need to use an advanced edit with JSON to change a selection field like this.

Kind regards,
Bill

[Leonardo Zevallos Guzman]

The rule arrives in my email that works when I edit the fields in MIP-1, but it is wrong because it has to be done automatically. By itself it does not make a single change. They are projects managed by the team. And what would the JSON solution be like? some sample.

[Bill Sheboy]

Repeating my earlier question...

Are these projects company-managed or team-managed, or one of each type?  (You may find that information at the bottom-left side of the expanding area when you view a project.)

I do not understand your explanation about what did not work as expected.  To help understand what the rule changed for the issues:

• please post an image showing issue BC-2, including the Country field
• please post an image showing the Activity History for the issue MIP-1 as the rule indicates it changed that issue
• please post an image showing issue MIP-1, including the Country field