In our company we use very closely JIRA and Confluence. Structure allows us to properly organize issues based on our demands and workflows and it works perfectly for people who are assigning tasks or implementing them. But we use Confluence for executive summary of progress on specific builds where would be very helpful if we can display progress bar of a specific issue (counted from all issues below of selected issue in the hierarchy). This way we would be able to create great overviews like e.g. "Bug fixing of Feature1", "Implementing Feature2", ... with progress bars behind without a need of displaying complicated window with all issues in the hierarchy.

Having possibility to select display mode as in Roadmap for JIRA (displaying open, in-progress and resolved issues with different color) would be absolutely awesome :)

Right now, I have two choices, export to Excel or print from the structure board.

In our situation, the description and acceptance criteria have bullets, numbers and other items allowed in JIRA's rich editor.

When exporting to Excel, this renders as HTML tags which Office does not accept and render correctly.
When using the print functionality, JIRA Issues cross over page breaks (which we could fix if we could have it render in Excel)

The reason this is a concern for us is that or customers want to be able to review the technical architecture. ePrinting is our only real option and it doesn't look professional when presented this way.

If there is another way this can be done, I'm open to suggestions.

Thanks

By example, we use stories and have them implement features. Our final state for stories is "Closed" and when all stories are closed we want to have the feature change it's state to "Ready for Production" however there doesn't seem to be a way to do that.

To that end, it would be nice if we could say that for state X we could specify what transitions could go there given that its sub-items state may be different.

Example:
Feature Workflow has "In Progress" --- {Ready To Deploy} --->>> "Ready for Production"
Story Workflow has "Verify" --- {Ready To Deploy} --->>> "Closed"
Would want the "Ready for Production" State in the Allowed Transitions section to be able to choose 'Ready to Deploy' from the story workflow.

Right now the link synchronizer works only between parent and sub-issues. However, this is often not enough. For example, we would like to automatically link "development" and "system testing", which are usually sibling issues under a single "Change Reqest ### for system XYZ" issue.

A use case for "cousin" links is similar: "integration testing" should depend on all "system testing" issues within the same "Change Request ###" parent/grandparent issue.

Right now we work around this by using template structures, but this is fiddly and error prone, since issues like "integration testing" should be edited manually after N "change request for system" issues are added to the structure.

USE CASE:
1. Visualize Progress Bar functionality test coverage on diff browsers (following example @ https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/com.almworks.testy)
2. Re-use the same test plan structure for multiple builds

OPTIONS FOR BUILD 2:

Option 1;
Use columns for each browser (next build requires cloning to track test execution)
Problem 1: Requires cloning of entire structure for next build
Problem 2: Cloning just test results will not work as new results will overwrite test results from build 1

Option 2:
Use columns for each test run (no need to clone the tree and browser makes put in the hierarchy)
Problem 1: after a dozen of builds I will run out of space to add new test runs.

DESIRED SOLUTION (Similar to Zephyr, SpiraTest, TestLink, etc…):
Ability to created new test runs/sessions/cycles without:
a) Cloning test cases (unnecessary dups)
b) Overwriting previous test results

We always have multiple coders on our projects, and almost always have multiple coders contributing to each piece of functionality within a project. We use the Tempo Plugin for JIRA to keep all that straight.

Structure's time summations are really helpful and beneficial. But for our multi-coder environment, we have to look at that summation in Structure, then look at every subtask and split out exactly who contributed how much to the Structure main task, because different coders are at different billing rates. This is not workable except on very small projects.

What would be ideal is if we could see a per-coder breakdown of the summed logged time at any level in the Structure.

Thanks for considering this. We will be hoping to roll our own with a combination of the Tempo and Structure APIs, but would love to see this as part of the product.