As we announced a few months ago, Insight in Jira Service Management is being renamed to Assets (see Coming soon: Insight will become Assets). This also requires that the existing Assets custom field in Jira Service Management is renamed. This will be happening in the coming days.
What’s changing:
Custom field label: Assets will be replaced with Legacy Assets
Custom field descriptor: Link assets to an issue will be replaced with Link assets are available via Marketplace apps and the legacy assets platform.
Nothing else - the Assets platform will continue to function as it does currently.
Update any mentions of this custom field in your apps or documentation.
We know there are a number of apps that have used the legacy assets platform. We’re currently building out our new strategy and how we can bring these apps into “Assets” - for this we’d like your help!
If you’re keen to talk with us at some point in the near future and give us your thoughts - please let us know in the comments below.
All the best,
Justin King
Product Manager, Jira Service Management
It’s pretty worrying for us that you rename the (not at all “legacy”) asset platform to “Legacy Assets”. As far as I know, it was solely used by apps and there is no new asset platform that could be used by apps (see ACJIRA-2568 for our request to use the Insight API). Why should it be considered “legacy”, if we have no chance to use a non-legacy API?
Please only call something “legacy” if there is a non-legacy option available. Also, I’d expect Atlassian to honor the usual 6 months deprecation notice before having us migrate to a different API once it becomes available.
We don’t want to tell our new customers that they need to use “Legacy Assets” in order to use our asset apps. To solve the name conflict, I’m sure you can think of a better name than “Legacy Assets”, e.g. “App Assets” or “Marketplace Assets”.
If you’re keen to talk with us at some point in the near future and give us your thoughts - please let us know in the comments below.
Definitely keen to talk and give you our thoughts as you can see above
Insight is not my field, but “legacy assets” sounds definitely misleading. “Marketplace assets”, “ecosystem assets” or “app assets” sound reasonable and more friendly.
Right now there are some people involved in the internal Atlassian decision thinking, “I told you so.” As far as I can see, there are no good answers here, precisely because we don’t have a new assets platform for apps to use yet. When we figure that out (with your help), the new and old will both have apps in Marketplace as part of our ecosystem. How would customers & users understand the distinction then? At some point, Atlassian will need to signal a preference.
In my attempt to advocate for all the vendors with existing apps, I did not want Atlassian “hiding” those signals from customers or partners with clever naming that leaves customers confused or defers the vendors’ problem to the end of the app lifecycle; hence, I argued for “legacy”. While I do understand adding “legacy” to the name will have an impact for existing vendors, wouldn’t it be better to focus on finding the path forward than fine-tuning the name? I’m open to being wrong here but please follow the argument through the lifecycle of the change we’re talking about here to help us understand how the new name works for both your needs and customers’.
When we figure that out (with your help), the new and old will both have apps in Marketplace as part of our ecosystem. How would customers & users understand the distinction then? At some point, Atlassian will need to signal a preference.
Sure, please do so, but not before having both new and old in place and with the usual deprecation period. Btw, the Server deprecation/move to Data Center was also not signaled in the name. Also, company/team-managed projects were not named that way on day 1 and it didn’t seem to hurt much to rename them from classic/next-gen once again. If you absolutely need to rename “Assets” to something else because of the renaming of Insight, I’m sure you can think of a good option without hurting vendor trust.
In my attempt to advocate for all the vendors with existing apps
From our perspective as a vendor, to be honest it doesn’t feel that way.
wouldn’t it be better to focus on finding the path forward than fine-tuning the name?
I agree that finding the path forward is important, but confusing customers and vendors with a name indicating our apps are out of date is just not acceptable. We’re not even fine-tuning here, we’re trying to prevent a disaster.
but please follow the argument through the lifecycle of the change we’re talking about here
Please enlighten us about the planned lifecycle of those changes. This is the first time I’ve heard about any of such plans regarding the asset platform, and the message above by @JustinKing only mentions changing a few names so we can update our documentation. Not sure what follows next, but maybe now would be a good time to go into more details?
There is also the possibility to name it something like “classic-assets”, i.e. using a name that signals that it is an older way of doing it, while at the same time not signalling “outdated, don’t touch”.
@JustinKing@ibuchanan I don’t feel that our feedback has been addressed. Why do you insist on such bad wording when there are clearly better options available? This is one of the worst communication experiences I’ve had as an “Atlassian Partner” so far.
I am also okay with moving on from legacy assets to the new assets/insights but the problem is the latter is very limited in functionality (for example you can only create a single asset in one API call) we can’t tell customers to use “legacy assets” and we can’t work with the new insights/assets if Atlassian wants us to move on least they can do is give an alternative that works
Im keen to talk with you guys about this.
We have some considerations, for example as @ParagPatil mentioned about only one API call, or mess up with dual systems integrated.
There is no way to correctly filter, or specify the usage of a field.
Please reach out for conversation if interested.
I apologise that it’s taken us a couple of weeks to come back to you on this. I want you know we have heard your feedback on the “Legacy Assets” naming loud and clear and acknowledge that we should have allowed more time to consult with the community before going ahead with the change.
Over the next week we will consider our options and I’ll continue to give updates here as things progress.
Thanks for your patience,
Justin King
Product Manager, Jira Service Management
Thank you very much for your feedback (and patience) on this topic, we now have an update ready to share with you.
We listened to your concerns and spoke to some of you directly, then went back to the drawing board - the result is we will be renaming ‘Legacy Assets’ to ‘External assets platform’ and adding more detail to the descriptor. We will also revise the native ‘Assets objects field’ descriptor to more clearly specify Jira Service Management. We hope this will ease any concerns and will enable your users to better distinguish between the two fields. Here is the summary:
What’s changing:
Custom field label:
Legacy Assets will be replaced with External assets platform
Custom field descriptor:
Link assets that have been made available via marketplace apps and the legacy assets platform will be replaced with Link assets that have been made available via marketplace apps on external inventory platforms outside Jira.
Assets objects custom field descriptor:
Link issues to Assets objects will be replaced with Link issues to objects in Assets for Jira Service Management.
Nothing else - the platform will continue to function as it does currently.
What we recommend:
Update any mentions of this custom field in your apps or documentation.
We’re looking at making these changes in the coming weeks and will add a comment here once they’re live. We’re looking to build the best tool that we can and the community here is a key part of that - so if you’re keen to talk with us at some point in the future and share your thoughts, please let us know in the comments below.
