...
The first thing we tried was to map all the different statuses on Jira to one status in ADO. However, we quickly noticed that would not work well for them, because for example, in issue-type Bugs one status would mean a different thing than the same status would in the Tasks workflow. A migration with this kind of mapping would cause confusion for the team working on the project and the status would be meaningless.
The second option would be to create a different profile for each issue type, using a JQL in the Filter by issue type, for example, issueType=Bug, issueType=Epic, and so on. Doing this and then migrating in order or hierarchy, first Epics, then Bugs, Tasks, Stories, and Subtasks in the end, would solve the status mapping problem. Although, in. In the Cloud-Native version, one problem arises, the linking between issues is made within the profile, for that reason, issues migrated with the profile filtered for Epics would not be linked to the issues migrated with the profile filter by Bugs, and that would apply to all issue types.
...
Losing the links between the issues would not be an option for our client, especially when talking about Epics and subtasks, that information is essential for the workflow and hierarchy of the issues. They also didn’t want to use the Self-Hosted version, because it involves installation in on a Windows machine.
\uD83D\uDCD8 Workaround
...
(OPTIONAL) At this point the profile is ready to perform a migration, so as a backup: Clone the profile to save the configurations, this new cloned profile should NOT be used for migration.
Start initial sync that should include ALL epics, be sure to add a an old date that doesn’t exclude any older issues. To be sure, go to the Jira project and run the JQL applied in the filter, check the number of issues. They should ALL be migrated at this point.
After Epics are all migrated, go edit the same profile and repeat the steps 1-5 for a different issue type by using the hierarchy order.
...