Branch rule working on wrong issues

[Ipsen Logistics]

I have an issue adress where some approvals are attached via related link. The trigger is when the adress issue is transitioned.

In that case my rule looks for related linked issues with a certain label and status. What is going wrong is that another issue not attached via related issue link gets affected and I do not know why. Please see screenshot where SD-11018 does not have a link to the trigger issue but gets also transitioned in the rule.

What am I doing wrong here?

Thanks in advance & best regards

AK

[Ipsen Logistics]

Hello John,

of course! Here you are:

As you may see: Only Related Issues with a certain label should be affected ...

Where is my error?

[John Funk]

Hi @Ipsen Logistics ,

Can you also share a screenshot of the actual rule?

[Ipsen Logistics]

Posted it beneath. Please apologise for the confusion.

[John Funk]

Why don't you use a Branch rule for Linked Issues instead of JQL?

[Ipsen Logistics]

The task is to transition the approvals one by one/in a predifined order. So first related issues with label genehmigung_nl or genehmigung_de and after these gets approved the next ones.

So here I need to trasition a subset of the related issues - which in most cases works fine but not in the mentioned example: The query matches but the issue is not a related issue.

Hope the explains my requeriments ...!?

[Ipsen Logistics]

May be I am not understanding the IF-clause correctly: I assume that my condition only matches related issues (of the actual adress) AND the query - so approvals with label genehmigung_de or genehmigung_nl

...?

[Nic Brough -Adaptavist-]

Could you show us where SD-11019 was not matching the rule?

[Ipsen Logistics]

Hello,

could you explain? What can I show you? I posted the screenshot where the issue matched and the wrong related issue got transitioned.

What do you mean by: where SD-11019 was not matching?

Thanks & best regards

AK

[Nic Brough -Adaptavist-]

You need to look at why the issue is being missed.  What part of it is causing the rule not to match it?  That's why I asked to look at the issue - you'll need to look at why the data is excluding it.

[Ipsen Logistics]

@Nic Brough -Adaptavist- 

It is not that the condition misses the issue. The issue which gets transitioned does not belong to the adress issue (is not related to).

Adress is SD-11019

Related issues are: SD-11020, SD-11021, SD-11022

SD-11018 is an approval related to another adress issue which is SD-11015

Makes sense?