New Feature Request

Hi Colin

I'm afraid for audit purposes that is not possible through the UI or the API.

You would need to make any such updates directly in the database (which is not officially supported, but would work in this case).

Regards

David

I have similar problem.

We have some technical fields that are updated from git/quality control tools.

1. First of all, they brake Spira's entity history as it becomes not readable.
2. Second, yes, I wish "Last Updated" field not to be changed.

So, I would like to be able to exclude some custom fields from being tracked in a history and from changing "Last Updated" field.

It is possible to update the record in a way that does not update the "Last Updated" field or reset the field after making changes but the history may still be retained fish eat fish

Hi Elliot,

As David said, for audit purposes that is not possible through the UI or the API.

You would need to make any such updates directly in the database (which is not officially supported, but would work in this case).

Regards,

Kat

It seems like your client is facing a significant challenge with managing large-scale defects effectively, especially with the unintended update of the "Last Updated" field. Here are a few potential approaches that might help you resolve this:

1. Field Category Setup (cluster rush) : Some platforms allow you to designate fields as "non-core" or informational. If your current tool supports categorization, you could mark certain fields as exempt from triggering updates to the "Last Updated" timestamp.

2. Using API or Scripting: If the platform you're using has API support or scripting capabilities, you could design a custom function that updates specific fields without modifying the "Last Updated" property. This would bypass the issue entirely.

3. Configuration Options: Explore whether your tool offers settings to exclude particular fields from influencing the "Last Updated" field. It's possible this feature exists but might require enabling or configuring under advanced settings.

4. Manual Timestamp Adjustment: If no automated options exist, you could potentially update the "Last Updated" field back to its original value manually after bulk edits. While time-consuming, this may be viable for smaller batches.

5. Engage Tool's Support Team: If none of the above options are available, contacting the support team or community forums for your defect management tool could provide insights on handling this issue or even suggest future enhancements.

Hi Colin,

You mentioned using Bulk Edit to populate the custom fields, do you find the current Bulk Edit functionality sufficient for your needs otherwise, or are there specific improvements you’d like to see there as well to support your analysis workflow?

Retro Bowl

I found this to be a very practical and useful share in project data management. Mass updates that change the 'Last Updated' field can indeed cause confusion about the revision history.

Mass updates, even for adding valuable custom analysis fields, shouldn't inadvertently skew this important data point.

That’s a great point. Bulk edits for analysis shouldn't necessarily alter the "Last Updated" timestamp, especially for long-term tracking. A “non-core” or “metadata-only” flag on custom fields sounds like a smart solution. Alternatively, having an option to suppress timestamp updates during certain bulk operations would be really useful. Hopefully the team considers this for a future release—it would definitely help maintain historical accuracy in large datasets.

The issue Colinmain raises is important for maintaining data integrity! The 'Last Updated' field is often used to track progress, identify missed bugs, or bugs that need to be revisited. Having it updated incorrect by simply by adding analytical fields, would distort the overall picture of bug status.

You could suggest adding a "silent update" option in Bulk Edit or field settings, allowing changes to non-critical fields without modifying the "Last Updated" timestamp.