I'm wanting to modify an existing workflow in workflow designer to give 3 routing options for a user instead of 2. It says that a task node can only have one positive and one negative line. What's the work-around for this?
I don't think an action group would work since I want 3 different 'To node's
Thanks
I'm away from a system to confirm, but I believe you are looking for a "Manual Input Node". I think that one will present any number of options to the user. The options will be based on the label of the lines coming out of the node and workflow will follow the path of the line the user picks.
Related
Is there a way to trigger an action in Microsoft Flow (Power Automate) when just one specific file in SharePoint gets modified? At the moment I have the situation that 6 files are updated at once, so the same action is triggered 6 times in a row.
I use the trigger "When an item is created or modified". There I can only adjust the SharePoint site name and the list (library) of files to monitor.
Make sure your settings are set in a way the flow don't run in parallel.
In essence, you may want to limit the concurrence of the flow so it will run just once at a time.
1) First go to the settings
2) Limit the paralellism. If you just want to work on the first item then click turn on Split On which will yield a single file.
You can check here for more details.
I have created a bunch of short flows that act on a single SharePoint list item to reduce complexity, but I've run into a problem with the order in which they execute. I think I could best explain this with an example, so please see below:
Let's say there are three flows, SetTitle, SetPermissions, and SendEmail (sends an email based on the new value after a column changes). Ideally, SetPermissions would run first, then SendEmail, and finally SetTitle since it modifies the item. That modification is a problem because it adds a version to Version History, which I am checking in the SendEmail flow to see if the value of a column changed.
Currently, however, SetTitle sometimes runs first, which breaks SendEmail because now the most recently displaced version does not contain a record of the column change that happened two versions ago.
I would like to avoid creating additional columns in the item to track column changes or emails sent, because we're creating these flows to avoid that messy complexity.
I'm hoping that there is some hidden execution order option somewhere, because as I said, I don't really want to create extra columns or trigger flows based on HTTP calls. Of course, what I'm doing now isn't working, so I understand that I may have to compromise.
I do not think what you are looking for is possible tbh.
I know you said you do not want to create more columns, but the only solution that I can think of requires only 1 extra column to be created. Use that to run the flows in the right order.
For example, if there are two flows: f1 and f2, set the default value of the new column(let's call it 'stage') to 0. Then, add a condition to f1 so it only runs when the stage is 0 and also updates the column to 1. Then f2 also has an initial condition check and runs only when 'Stage' is '1' and also sets 'Stage' to '2'.
Hope this helps.
We currently have a number of workflows in our organization that require users to add an item to a list via a form, but then not be able to edit that item unless given special permission to do so.
For example a user submits a leave of absence request and it is routed to their manager. The 1st level manager might approve this request and the workflow continues. While the request is in the managers hands it cannot be modified by the original submitter, however if the manager rejects it or requires revision the original submitter should then be able to edit.
Is this possible? The best strategy we could come up with for this is multiple Lists to handle the different levels of security required for this. Are there better ways of doing this?
SharePoint seems to have a very open concept of security within an SP site and maybe were just trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Thanks!
How about Remove permission for that user/for all user using workflow itself?
http://spcycle.blogspot.jp/2012/01/how-to-create-workflow-to-change-item.html
http://shareapointkiran.blogspot.jp/2012/06/addremove-permissions-using-sharepoint.html
And then give it back when manager approves/rejects
I had a similar problem and solved it with a quick and dirty solution.
In our case this quick and dirty solution might be even easier.
You could add a hidden field that has an default value of for example 0.
Then you add a (formating) rule to one of the fields that should be deactived.
The rule should deactivate the field if the value of the hidden field is not 0.
This rule can be copied to every field that should be deactivated too.
Now add a set field action to your workflow that set the value of the hidden field to something else than 0, for example 1.
To make a hidden field you can define formating rule with a condition that is always true.
Now if someone creates a form the workflow will set the value of your hidden field to 1. The rule of the fields that should be deactived will now deactivate the fields.
Hide the field
Deactivate the field rule
I have created the below diagram and I wanted to know if the diagram that I have done is correct.
The below diagram is based on an android application. When the application loads the user is given 3 button to select add, update and help. On click on add button the user is given an option to add a new user or add a new item. When he select either of the options he enters the required data once the data is entered the system check if all the values are entered correctly and then finally saved. The same process is applied for update.
Your diagram misses an entry point. Though it's rather obvious that the top action is the start, only the entry point is the one indicating the beginning.
You can omit most of the diamonds and directly transfer via a guard from actions. So your conditions should be guards and written as [Yes] or [No]. The top most action (and quite some others) is(/are) indeed what should be written inside (or aside) the diamond below.
An excerpt for an update could look like this:
Finally Values added does not look like an action but rather as state. It should be omitted. Alternatively use differently named end flows.
So far for the formal points. But as #eyp said: it's a good one and one can understand what you tried to express. The above is just for the picky teachers.
It's a good one but it lacks some detail in the diamonds. You should write besides the diamon the question before choosing the next setp to do.
For example in the diamond after Check update value you may write is valid? or another question that clarifies more the business logic.
I've just started to look workflows in 2010 which seem pretty good but I can't find seem to find out how do something very simple.
Basically I'm creating a lost property list and workflow, essentially anyone can add a new item to the list for an item that they've found. Next anyone can make a claim on an item in the list which should then email the admins where they can investigate and close claim if the rightful owner has claimed their item.
Should be very simple and would take me no time in .net but not in SharePoint! Any suggestions on how I could do this?
I've been looking at SPD workflow tasks and not really getting anywhere. My next step is to go into VS2010 but this seems overkill for such an easy task.
Thanks
Dan
what is your intention to allow someone to "claim?" are you intending to enable a "claim" as just a flag and a workflow sending emails to the admins?
Create a Yes/No field Claimed with the default value set to false.
Create a SPD Workflow that would start OnItem Create.
In this workflow add an Action that waits till the Claimed Flag is set to true.
Then you can send the email to the administrator (also with an SPD activity).
Optionally you can delete this item from the list after a period of time.
Based on my understanding of your question and the fact that we tried something similar a while back, I have created a blog (my first blog entry!). Below is the link, feel free to leave comments;
http://sp10tech.blogspot.com/2010/10/creating-simple-workflow-using.html
Alternate Idea;
Maybe use two lists. One for items lost and one for claims. This way you can have multiple claims on each lost item. Add a field that references the claims list so the user can select it. Then simply have the administrators use a out of the box alert mechanism. No need for elaborate work flow.