User with acces to project B cannot see linked issue in project A

[BenWade]

Hi everyone,

I have two projects: Project A and Project B.
Users create tickets in Project B, which are then analyzed by the PMO. If the tickets are clear, the PMO clones them into Project A, where developers begin working on the tickets.

My initial idea was that ticket creators would be able to see the status of the linked issue to stay updated on the ticket progress. However, I've noticed that they do not see the linked ticket.
I believe this is because they do not have the "Browse Projects" permission in Project A. Is there a way to allow the ticket creators to see the linked issue and its status, without giving them the ability to open a ticket in Project A?

#jirapremium

#jiracloud

#companymanaged

[Michael Wohlgemuth · Accepted solution]

Hey Ben,

if youre strictly concerned about the users opening new tickets (or editing for example), you can give the necessary group of people from project B the browse permissions to project A, but not the edit or create permission for A. Then they could see the issues but not create or edit any.

If the project A has other issues which should not be seen by anyone in project B, then that would be a potential issue which might be solved by using issue security.

OR you could create a field for project B and fill it by automation with the status of the cloned issue if one exists. That is not a solution i would propose, but since its possible i cant leave it out either.

regards

[BenWade]

Can I make an automation rule so that the ticket in Project B copies the status of the cloned ticket in Project A but only when the link type is clone? The thing is there can be several issues linked to one ticket and it should only copy the status of the ticket with a specific link type.

[Michael Wohlgemuth]

That should be possible, yes.

See the following screenshot of a very basic implementation of this. Notice that I use "Description" as the "target field" to hold the status of the linked issue. This should be replaced by a dedicated field, probably.