LinkedIn
Twitter
The CONTEXT("Table") returns the table used by the current view and in turn the current view is specific to each device/user.
Please take a look at the description of CONTEXT("Table") in the article.
However, you have a valid point and some other member may add / guide more to your query. I am sorry that presently I have nothing more to add, as I have myself not come across the specific use case you describe- use of table name returned by CONTEXT() in security filter.
I will revert if I am able to test and find something more useful to add.
Thank you very much for the details of the test environment. My initial testing shows it otherwise.
if I use CONTEXT("Table")= "Table 1" in Y/N type column a view based on Table 2, it returns FALSE or N.
In the example, below, my expression for the [Context_Table] column is CONTEXT("Table")="Orders" and the column is in view based on "Products" table. It returns FALSE as expected.
The column definition in the "Products" table
Additional explanation with screenshots.
I've set the columns up to show all the different cases at the same time to reduce the need to change the formula's back and forth.
Here we have "Test Table" where we set up three Columns:
Column "Shouldnt_Work":
Notice that it's called "Shouldnt_work" because that Table context is not the table of the column, instead it's a different table "Test Table 2".
Column "CONTEXT_Function"
Directly reference the function from a field as a baseline:
Column "Should Work"
Same as the "Shouldnt_Work" column but this time the CONTEXT() function matches the correct "Table".
MONEY SHOT
Going to add a record on the "Test Table" shows that despite being on the "Test Table" table and view, the FILTER() functions read of a different table has highjacked the CONTEXT results and it's now localized to that table. "Should Work" just doesn't show up because it doesn't return any results.
FYI: "Test Table 2". Which has been set up to have 5 entries of 1,2,3,4,5
Additional ramble: I can guess (appsheet is new to me) at how this happened. The process appears to be pointer based, so the code thinks it's on the "Test Table 2" because the conditions in the filter are localized, or index reads, from the table in the first parameter of the function, i.e. you can reference column, e.g. [whatever] directly without a table specifier in the second parameter of the function, instead of what you'd do in an object orientated based language of specifying the full object.property. But that being said, the function CONTEXT() should not be influenced by the formula's function reads and you can't chuck a [_THISROW]. on the CONTEXT() function (I think) and nor would I if I tie it back to the Security Filter scenario causing me the grief.
So , I am back with my testing.๐
Test 1
Test a column in Products Table (Table 2) based view by getting records from the Orders table (Table 1) by using CONTEXT( "Table") = "Orders"
So my expression for the [Context_Table] column is
FILTER("Orders", CONTEXT("Table")="Orders")
The result when tested in a detail view of Products table ( Table 2) is surprisingly unexpected, at least as per the description of CONTEXT('Table") in the help article "
Table- Name of the table used by the current view."
Or our( my) interpretation of this description is incorrect. But the results are in line with your testing and finding.
As the image shows, all the keys of the "Orders" Table ( Table 1) are returned in the view based on Products table(Table 2).
Test 2: I tested the expression of filter expression on table 1 ( Orders) in table 2's security filter as you were testing and you were not getting any records.
Security filter for table Products is as follows
The results are in line with test 1 above and contrary to your findings. The expression does return all the rows of the Products table as the following image shows,
Overall conclusion : ( as of now, till someone guides more ๐ The CONTEXT("Table") does not seem to be evaluating in the context of the current view.
However your observation of the expression not working in the security filter seems to be incorrect per my testing.
Finally , I am still trying to understand your use case of having CONTEXT("Table") in security filter.
@Mitchos wrote:
@Suvrutt_Gurjar, just be careful not to hijack this post
I am sorry but I first time got a comment in my so many years of community contribution of such a strong wording of " hijacking" when I was just trying to conclude from my side so as not to leave a thread unfinished from my side.
@Suvrutt_Gurjar wrote:
Overall conclusion : ( as of now, till someone guides more
The CONTEXT("Table") does not seem to be evaluating in the context of the current view.
But I will surely not add anything further in this thread. Just for context, some of the post threads I have participated have gone for 50 posts ( and solved). But anyway best luck and thank you very much for a different perspective. I am sincerely sorry to be (overly) pitching in and trying to be helpful.
Hi @Suvrutt_Gurjar,
I'm very sorry, I should be a more considerate community member and as stated I respect you dedicating time to helping people. Please accept my apologies if I ended up abrupt.
I was saying it was heading that way because early on you said you'd step back but then every time I started a new thread you jumped in and replied to it, but were several steps behind where I was at and my effort versus reward was starting to look like the post was not working.
You did get to a conclusion but I'd already reached that conclusion before posting, then stated it in post and then put screenshot in of the evidence at your request. But there was lots of time I had to spend for you to get to the same conclusion (the first several comments were just winding back pre-made assumptions) and I felt it was unnecessary to put your last post in when my preceding post/s already had an outcome.
Then you finished the post with adding further ambiguity by saying I was incorrect when I was not, when it's been shown several times in this post that you've just misunderstood. And then that would need even further going over the same stuff.
Maybe now you have seen for yourself that there is a bug, have a reread of the whole thread and see if you can appreciate where I am coming from.
I'm under some time pressure and this bug has not helped, so I sincerely hope we can put this down to a miscommunication and that I have some learnings to take away about how to better post in this space and contribute as a considerate community member.
Thanks
