Community
Products
Jira
Questions
Losing field values when changing issue type

Losing field values when changing issue type

I am stumped hoping someone can help.

I have 2 issue types, Bugs for internal defects and Incidents for field reported defects.

Both are level 0.

Both are in the same Work Type Screen scheme

Both have the same workflow.

Both are in the same project.

When I try to bulk change the issue type from bug to incident using move within the project I am getting the message that 3 of the fields will be cleared if I proceed.

There are no custom required fields.

If I go one by one using change the icon from bug to incident the issue type changes without warnings.

Anyone have ideas why this is happening?

Same screen scheme.png same wf.png

2 answers

0 votes

Hey @PATRICIA MURPHY ,

Besides sharing the actual message (as requested by @Varsha Joshi), have you already verified that no field changes occur when moving your work items manually? You should be able to check this by looking into the History tab of the Activity section at the bottom of the work item view.

Regards,
Thorsten

You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.

Comment

Hey @PATRICIA MURPHY,

So, I've played around with different scenarios, checking the behaviour regarding differences in field schemes, field contexts, etc. And while I'd encourage you to double-check on those, I always ended up in "consistent behaviour":

With a configuration resulting in field changes, I was not able to simply "flip the work type icon" on a single work item. Instead, the move issue operation dialogue opened, and I was prompted with the same changes that are shown when moving multiple work items in bulk.
With a matching configuration without field changes, I could change a single work item by simply using the icon, and no changes were shown when moving multiple work items in bulk.

Unfortunately, I've run out of ideas. This might even be a question for the official support. I am definitely interested in the explanation, but maybe someone else here or I will come up with something else.