Pipedrive search organization node outputs the same value event though the incoming data is different

Describe the issue/error/question

Pipedrive search organization node outputs the same value event though the incoming data is different

Please share the workflow

Share the output returned by the last node

Sharing the first page of the output. It should be different organizations, but for some reason it’s the same one
[

{

“result_score”: 0.4178,

“id”: 20300,

“type”: “organization”,

“name”: “aaa”,

“address”: null,

“visible_to”: 5,

“owner”: {

“id”: 7870729

},

“custom_fields”: [

],

“notes”: [

]

},

{

“result_score”: 0.4178,

“id”: 20300,

“type”: “organization”,

“name”: “aaa”,

“address”: null,

“visible_to”: 5,

“owner”: {

“id”: 7870729

},

“custom_fields”: [

],

“notes”: [

]

},

{

“result_score”: 0.4178,

“id”: 20300,

“type”: “organization”,

“name”: “aaa”,

“address”: null,

“visible_to”: 5,

“owner”: {

“id”: 7870729

},

“custom_fields”: [

],

“notes”: [

]

},

{

“result_score”: 0.4178,

“id”: 20300,

“type”: “organization”,

“name”: “aaa”,

“address”: null,

“visible_to”: 5,

“owner”: {

“id”: 7870729

},

“custom_fields”: [

],

“notes”: [

]

},

{

“result_score”: 0.4178,

“id”: 20300,

“type”: “organization”,

“name”: “aaa”,

“address”: null,

“visible_to”: 5,

“owner”: {

“id”: 7870729

},

“custom_fields”: [

],

“notes”: [

]

},

{

“result_score”: 0.4178,

“id”: 20300,

“type”: “organization”,

“name”: “aaa”,

“address”: null,

“visible_to”: 5,

“owner”: {

“id”: 7870729

},

“custom_fields”: [

],

“notes”: [

]

},

{

“result_score”: 0.4178,

“id”: 20300,

“type”: “organization”,

“name”: “aaa”,

“address”: null,

“visible_to”: 5,

“owner”: {

“id”: 7870729

},

“custom_fields”: [

],

“notes”: [

]

},

{

“result_score”: 0.4178,

“id”: 20300,

“type”: “organization”,

“name”: “aaa”,

“address”: null,

“visible_to”: 5,

“owner”: {

“id”: 7870729

},

“custom_fields”: [

],

“notes”: [

]

},

{

“result_score”: 0.4178,

“id”: 20300,

“type”: “organization”,

“name”: “aaa”,

“address”: null,

“visible_to”: 5,

“owner”: {

“id”: 7870729

},

“custom_fields”: [

],

“notes”: [

]

},

{

“result_score”: 0.4178,

“id”: 20300,

“type”: “organization”,

“name”: “aaa”,

“address”: null,

“visible_to”: 5,

“owner”: {

“id”: 7870729

},

“custom_fields”: [

],

“notes”: [

]

}

]

Hi @Artego, can you share the JSON output from your “ActiveCampaign1” node? Feel free to redact the actual values, I am just interested in the data structure.

I found the issue. I was pulling data from Activecampaign1 node and not current node. It works after switching it. However, I have another issue now (lol).
When this part of the workflow ends, I’m trying to check if an organization already exists in Pipedrive (we discussed this earlier today). When an organization is not present in Pipedrive already, I need to create one using node Pipedrive1, however, it pulls just empty data and not the data to create an organization from. I tried different nodes to pull it but it’s always empty.

1 Like

Ah, that part should be easy to solve (I hope :wink:). Simply put a Set node after the Pipedrive node inside your loop that brings back the input data. Meaning all your items (even if nothing is found by the Pipedrive) node have all the data you need. For example:

I’ve left this step away in my old example to focus on the looping logic, sorry if this has caused any confusion. Note that you’d also need to update the node name in the Function node accordingly in your own workflow (I’ve done that in the above example workflow of course):

Thank you for your patience. I tried adding a Set node, but the data still comes empty to my If node.

I fixed the node name in the function just now. Still empty ;(

Hi @Artego, it seems your Function node still reads data from Pipedrive12. Can you replace Pipedrive12 with Bring back input data in your Function code?

2 Likes

That should have done it. Can you share the JSON output from your Bring back input data node?

thank you so much

1 Like

You are most welcome! This is quite a complex logic to implement, so I am glad to hear this helped :slight_smile: