Multi-trigger Playbooks & Renamed Triggers

Hello Sentinel enthusiasts,

In some cases, deploying a playbook with multiple triggers is a much easier solution than having 9 playbooks which do the same thing. In the specific example I'm going for I have developed a playbook which requires the user to change their password within a certain amount of time. We want to have the ability to have three triggers for the playbook - incident, entity and http (for external orchestration platforms) - then we also want to have the option for it to be instant, or within a configurable number of days/hours (1day, 7days). In this situation the native way would be to have 9 playbooks in total - seems like a big amount for a simple action.

I attempted to initially develop these playbooks with all three triggers in a base template which is deployed using bicep - success. But what do you know, at first, I could only see the playbook in the automation playbook list saying "Sentinel Action" but I couldn't trigger it from an actual incident or entity. Turns out this was because I had given the trigger a different display name than the default. This specific case seems a bit odd to me because the underlying data is the same, nonetheless - not a huge issue, change the display name to the default and voila. My next surprise was when I realised that the Sentinel UI will only pick up the first trigger to run a playbook. i.e. if I define an entity trigger first then an incident trigger, I cannot see it appear to trigger for an incident and vice versa. 

So, I set on a mission and was able to create a chromium extension which will modify the resource response - to duplicate a playbook once for every trigger it has (only in the azure portal PWA) and what do I know - everything works perfectly as if it was fully supported. 

It would be great if these UI bugs could be fixed as they seem pretty trivial and don't seem to require a major change, considering it is solely a frontend bug - especially if I can create an extension which resolves the issue. Obviously, this is not an ideal scenario in production. Garnering some support to have this rectified would be great and it would also be cool to hear people's opinions on this

~Seb