Hey all,
Quick version:
Action 1 is defined: For a record of Table A, โExecute an action on a set of rowsโ. Referenced table: Table B. Referenced action: Action 2.
Action 2 is defined: For a record of table B, โAdd a new row to another table using values from this rowโใ Table to add to: Table C.
In action 2, I want to set a column of the new row in Table C equal to the key of the row in Table A where action 1 was used. Is that possible? How do I refer to that row in table A from Action 2?
Long version
If thatโs not possible, hereโs my use case.
Table A contains orders (columns: order number, pieces ordered, and related worktasks to fabricate pieces ordered).
Table B contains fabrication steps (columns: step, estimated time per piece)
Table C is the worktasks Table A refers to. Columns for table C:fabrication step, duration, start time, end time, employee assigned, associated order.
The idea of the whole flow is to, for a particular order, create one of each kind of worktask (e.g. prep, create, package) listed in table b.
I use table b as an intermediary because the fabrication steps are altered from time to time. It
If there isnโt an easy way to do whatโs in the โquick versionโ, is there a work around to accomplish this?
Solved! Go to Solution.
Itโs doable.
Check out this post, itโs exactly the same situation: table P_S in the post is the equivalent of your table C - Worktasks, and People corresponds to your Order.
Itโs doable.
Check out this post, itโs exactly the same situation: table P_S in the post is the equivalent of your table C - Worktasks, and People corresponds to your Order.
Jeeze louise. I finally got this to work. Thanks for your help.
I ran into a bug โ Iโm not sure if this applies to the exact use case you described or not. Iโll explain it here in case anyone else runs into this challenge.
In your solution, the assumption is that the list table (Skills) is being referred to by the other tables. In my case, this is not the behaviour I wanted. I have a list stored as table B. Table C references table A. But neither reference table B and table B references neither. So I had to subtract the list of โskillsโ for each row in table A from the whole list of โskillsโ in table B. The bug here is that the action does not properly parse the select statement when youโre selecting text values instead of refs. The real sinister thing about it: it works fine when you run the โtestโ, but not when you actually run it in an app.
I had to do create a virtual column for table A doing the list subtraction. Then, do an Any()
on that virtual column in the action.
The bug was posted here and apparently hasnโt been resolved. To the Appsheet devs: This is really frustrating. First, one needs an elaborate workaround to use a for loop. Then, that workaround requires an additional workaround to avoid a full-on bug. How many users would have been willing to wade through that mess?
I agree on the frustration part , but I am not sure to understand why you arenโt using references between tables that are meant to be logically linked. If you aimed to customize the behavior of the app (i.e. the way the way linked records are displayed, or the ability to edit / add parent / child records when you donโt want them to be edited) these are things that can be easily handled case by case, but I think that generally the pros of using references outweigh the cons.
I want it to be dumb.
What I mean by that: Iโm tracking task times for each task and creating schedules based on them. Iโm experimenting a lot with:
So I want a record of โThat week, we assigned tasks this way with these estimates and 15% were lateโ. Itโs easier to do that if everything is static - e.g. if I update the time a task should take for week 2, it doesnโt go back in history and pretend that I had the same assumption in week 1.
Only possible if the row of the intermediate table (Table B) has a Ref back to the row of the origin (Table A), or enough other information to identify the origin row.
User | Count |
---|---|
35 | |
35 | |
28 | |
23 | |
18 |