IF Node → Merge Node: No Merge Data Found

OK - I guess I see it now. Because Input 1 is always there, it works.

Well, I guess that is one way to do it. You have to add an extra dummy IF every time tho.
Doesn’t that seem quite hacky?
Still, if it works, I guess it works.

If you were replicating this pseudo code where both paths generate different outcomes, would you need 2 extra IFs?

if (sheetExists) {
   renameExistingSheet();
} else {
   createNewSheetWithName();
}

I would really prefer to replace the Merge with a dedicated “FI” or “END IF” node that has 2 inputs - for the FALSE and TRUE branches. I looked at this briefly but could not see how to make it.

To me, yes, but that’s what I found that works and was recommended when I was trying to figure out how to do it, so it’s what I’m using! :laughing:

1 Like

Thank you so much. I’m very new here and really appreciate your help.

1 Like

I added a feature request to add a dedicated “END IF” node that would merge the TRUE and FALSE branches directly. I’d gladly work on this, if someone can give me a pointer - maybe another node (Merge?) that I could use as a starting point.

Having a similar problem here. I created simulated data to follow the FALSE path. (below)

Data flows through FALSE path correctly but then it’s not recognized in the Merge node. Any solution for this? Is it a known issue, or am I doing something wrong?

EP

It’s counterintuitive but there is a workaround as mmac described above. You add an IF prior to your IF, set to always true, always send output. Then you feed that and the outcome of the ‘real’ IF to Merge, and set it to enhance the output from the always-true IF. Apparently, then the merge will continue, even if the real IF returns nothing.

Another solution is to put your IF into a sub-workflow with 2 outcome branches. This is what I’m doing - it’s cumbersome but it works.

If, like me, you would like to see a more straightforward approach, can I ask you to please upvote the feature request?