Entire node fail if one key value returns ERROR: no data, execute "node-name" node first

Questions
, ,
24

:frowning:

Hope the team can look into thisā€¦ this new behavior is affecting many others apparently.

25

Hey @pbdco, did you try my suggestion above?

Can you try running your workflow on [email protected] or later (moving your expression into a Set node (just before your current Switch node) with the Continue On Fail option enabled and confirm if youā€™re able to execute the Set node? These versions would contain a quick fix that should hopefully allow such expressions to work in the Set node.

26

@MutedJam thank you for your suggestion, but in my case the set node approach does not solve my issue. My workflows are pretty complex enough to put a set node before each conditional statement that I am currently using inside other nodes.

In most cases I have several parameters inside multiple nodes that are being defined this way. Adding a set node that defines a variable for each parameter would make the workflow even more complex and redundantā€¦ :frowning:

I still donā€™t understand why this change has been implemented, and even less I donā€™t see any positive outcome of this decision in a practical matterā€¦

27

In this case itā€™d be great if you could provide an example workflow using which your problem can be reproduced for a closer look. Please make sure it can be executed out of the box by other users without having access to any credentials or 3rd party services.

28

After multiple attempts I think I found a workaround using runIndex and ternary such as below

{{ $node["searchAccountURL"].runIndex === 0?$node["searchAccountURL"].json["OwnerId"]:$node["searchAccountId"].runIndex === 0?$node["searchAccountId"].json["OwnerId"]:$node["searchAccountId"].runIndex === 0?$node["searchAccountId"].json["OwnerId"]:null}}

Even if the first node donā€™t run, it allows you to check others nodes values and run the workflow as itā€™s expected. Itā€™s working on my workflows now cc @pbdco.

3 Likes
29

@Vincent_Bonjean thank you so much! This is actually the solution to this issue! :clap::pray::raised_hands:
(Hope OP @GBOL will see this!)

Hereā€™s a quick test! It works like a charm!!

2 Likes
30

@MutedJam thank you for your help as well.

By the way, the set node approach is not working in 1.3.1. The output of the set node is null.
Hereā€™s a quick test: