# Retaining of the issue status between branches from master

**URL:** <https://community.sonarsource.com/t/retaining-of-the-issue-status-between-branches-from-master/82731>\
**Category:** SonarQube Server / Community Build\
**Created:** [January 30, 2023, 6:55pm UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/retaining-of-the-issue-status-between-branches-from-master/82731 "2023-01-30T18:55:49Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sirisha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@sirisha](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/sirisha)\
**Post date:** [January 30, 2023, 6:55pm UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/retaining-of-the-issue-status-between-branches-from-master/82731/1 "2023-01-30T18:55:49Z")

</div>

We are using SonarQube Community Edition Version 8.9.9 (build 56886) and having trouble in retaining the status when an issue is marked as False positive/Won’t fix it.

This is the scenario - After performing Sonar scan on a branch, few reported issues were marked as False Positive and then this particular branch is merged to master. After that a new branch is created from master and sonar scan is performed on the new branch, all the issues marked as false positive/won’t fix are still coming in the report. We have to manually mark them again. Is there any way we can retain the status of the issue to avoid multiple iterations of verification. Can you suggest any solution in this regard.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ganncamp](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/sonarsource/user_avatar/community.sonarsource.com/ganncamp/32/1261_2.png) [@ganncamp](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/ganncamp)\
**Post date:** [January 31, 2023, 6:32pm UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/retaining-of-the-issue-status-between-branches-from-master/82731/2 "2023-01-31T18:32:40Z")

</div>

Hi,

Welcome to the community!

> [@sirisha](#):
>
> After performing Sonar scan on a branch, few reported issues were marked as False Positive and then this particular branch is merged to master.

And were the merged issues marked False Positive in your `main` branch? Because, per [the docs](https://docs.sonarqube.org/8.9/analyzing-source-code/branches/branch-analysis/#branch-analysis), that happens for PRs. But not branches.

> [@sirisha](#):
>
> Is there any way we can retain the status of the issue to avoid multiple iterations of verification.

Is there a reason you analyze the underlying branches instead of the PRs? That would eliminate the problem.

&nbsp;  
Ann

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sirisha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@sirisha](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/sirisha)\
**Post date:** [February 8, 2023, 6:58am UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/retaining-of-the-issue-status-between-branches-from-master/82731/3 "2023-02-08T06:58:17Z")

</div>

Thank you for the response, Can you please confirm if this feature works on the PRs in both Community Edition and Developer Edition.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ganncamp](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/sonarsource/user_avatar/community.sonarsource.com/ganncamp/32/1261_2.png) [@ganncamp](https://community.sonarsource.com/u/ganncamp)\
**Post date:** [February 8, 2023, 2:59pm UTC](https://community.sonarsource.com/t/retaining-of-the-issue-status-between-branches-from-master/82731/4 "2023-02-08T14:59:21Z")

</div>

Hi,

Community Edition doesn’t support PR analysis, so no.

&nbsp;  
Ann