I am syncing two projects in Jira server (Service Desk and Software) I want to sync the customer request type with a text field.
I am getting a weird text when I try to sync-it, I think it is because the customer request type is a special field and I cannot get the name of the request, I am getting the id. Any help on how to get the name?
Outgoing:
replica.customFields.“Customer Request Type” = issue.customFields.“Customer Request Type”
replica.customFields.“18097” = issue.customFields.“Customer Request Type” // cf Type of Request
I checked your documentation, it works good between customer request types, but not Customer Request Type → Text field.
The solution of puttying the value of the customer request type in the rules is not good for me, because I would have to update the rules every time they create a new request type.
What I had to do was sync Customer Request type with a text field, with Automation for Jira, and then sync that field with exalate.
Best Regards
Francis Martens (Exalate) commented on 10 November 2020
That’s creative (old community)
What is the issue for the mapping into a text field - the format of the customer request type (old community)
Lara LG commented on 10 November 2020
Customer Request Type is special, and usually causes trouble with any Atlassian app. It does not behave like a custom field. Mapping it to itself, works, but I cannot use that, because I am syncing Service Desk with Jira Software. Jira Software projects cannot show the field customer request type (it appears in the history, but never in the issue).
So the only solution is to map it against a text field, the issue is the value it syncies is not the name of the customer request type, it synces the id into the text field where in:
cat/c7db9d4f-1f92-45e9-ae58-9e7dc60577df
(CAT is the key of the project, and the rest is the ID of the customer request type)
And I wonder if it is possible to get the value…
Best Regards
Francis Martens (Exalate) commented on 10 November 2020
Just to be sure - is this cloud or ‘on premise’
Lara LG commented on 10 November 2020
On premise
Asle Kristian Andersen commented on 11 November 2020