Request for feedback: Jira/Confluence Cloud sandbox capabilities

Hey Marc,

Glad that you were able to get this resolved. Out of curiosity, what was the problem with the base URL? Do you have any screenshots you can share?

I’m not sure I understand the question. Can you clarify what you mean by “manage app licenses"?

Thanks for the feedback! This is definitely worth exploring. Are you running into any situations now where this is a problem?

Sure thing. I would like to be able to from my Connect (or Forge :slight_smile: ) app be able to detect that the current user is in a sandbox environment. This way I can do my own reporting (and possibly enforcement since I don’t believe that abuse enforcement on an app level isn’t really done by Atlassian) about usage.

We cannot use the Marketplace license report since all it will say is “yepp there’s a sandbox environment” and we don’t like having the app accessing the Marketplace.

Ideally there is a flag or something returned back in Context and in


It depend how you define the term “problem”. It’s not a problem to get a support ticket from you guys, asking for permission that a specific customer gets a free sandbox subscription. Does ist create an unnecessary overhead? Yes. If we had the option to just state "Yes, we are going to participate in a sandbox program, where every customer with a running paid subscription gets one sandbox subscription free of cost, we all save time.

1 Like

Hi @mtse , I have no screenshot. What happened (if I remember correctly) was the following: our customer installed our add-on in their sandbox, and then somehow moved all sandbox things back into the production instance. At that point our add-on could not authenticate to the production instance, because the sandbox base URL was different from the prod base URL. A reinstall solved this problem.
In retrospect, it would be expected that authentication for an add-on would need to change, but this was non-obvious to our customer, and hard to debug for us.

1 Like

I understand that the apps are not being carried over - and I also see why that’s not happening right now (due to /install webhooks that need to be called or similar).

However, it’d be really great if app-specific properties would be copied over. I understand that they would have no effect as long as the app is not installed - but if the app is installed, then the users can use the properties accordingly.
I think a big reason for having a sandbox is validating if an app makes sense based on real data - so it would be great if the data is actually there.


I don’t even see how entity properties can not be migrated over - entity properties are not app-specific.


I understand the benefit of this to premium and enterprise customers. But vendors should be given a choice about how they charge for sandbox installations and to what degree they support data copying.


@mtse Thank you Matt for sharing the details. I’d like to reflect and support some of the thoughts already shared under this topic.

  1. I believe that in order to provide a seamless, integrated experience for the users, apps should be a part of sandboxing functionality – from the licensing but also from the data copying perspective. If an app has to be licensed separately for a sandbox, and the app’s data is not copied at all, that would just reinforce the idea that that apps are “second class citizens” and that the customers should better stay away from the apps and try to use only the Atlassian-provided functionality.

  2. This suggests that the apps should be freely licensed for sandbox instances, and also that there should be some API/webhooks for the apps to detect sandbox lifecycle events, perform copying of the app-specific data, and probably report back into Atlassian API on the progress/completion status.

  3. For the vendors, there also needs to be sufficient reporting capabilities and in-product API or detection capabilities like the UI check @danielwester was suggesting.

  4. Last, but not least, there needs to be some monetization of the feature to support vendors’ businesses. Unfortunately, this concern seems to be easily “decoupled” from Atlassian programs and de-prioritized – because, understandably, it’s more important for Atlassian to please the customers, rather than the vendors, and make new programs roll out sooner. But Atlassian does get extra revenue from the Premium and Enterprise customers, while the vendors have to spend additional effort and resources on developing for and running sandbox instances (and other enterprise capabilities), without any upsell opportunities. In such circumstances, the only way to support these expenses would be raising the prices across the board, which will make the vendor’s business less competitive and will not be the best outcome for non-Enterprise customers.

Just my 2c. Hope this helps.



When an app is uninstalled via UPM the app server receives a notification and may then clean up any data related to that Confluence instance.
This notification is NOT sent in several scenarios, for example if a site is completely deleted.

I’m a bit worried that this will also happen when a sandbox is removed, because then the app server doesn’t know that the sandbox has been deleted and cannot remove data related to it.

1 Like