Skip to main content

I spent the last 4h hitting my head with the keyboard and trying to find a solution by myself, so, no solution found, and, here I am.

Scenario:

2 tables: table A and table B

Table A, has a linked filed to table B, and this last table contains several records

Basically it is 1:n relation

 

Ok. Now I setup a blank page on interface designer.

I select a record picker for table A. No issues here

And, I select a record picker for Table A, but linked field to table B. (which effectively displays only those values from the table B that are available/linked to table A)

The button triggers an automation which contains a script.  The idea -that is not working- is that the script should grab the value from the first record picker, which is the field recorded on Table A, and the value of the second record picker which is the linked field on table A pointing to table B.

What is the issue? when I defined the variables, I declared field1 as table A field, and field2 as the field with the linked records, assuming it would grab the values from the record pickers. But, for the linked field it is grabbing all the values stored on the table and not the one I choose over the interface.

 

It has to be possible I just don’t see it.

Any help is appreciated because this is blocking me badly.

Thanks in advance.

Hm, could you share screenshots of your Interface setup and your tables please?  Would love to help but could use more details

I tried to recreate the issue (base here) but it seemed to work fine for me, and so I figure my setups different from yours somehow

 

Sure,

 

 


With the current design:

In both cases, it's a 1:N relationship — one client linked to several banks (Table A), and one bank account linked to several clients (Table 😎.

 

User interface…

 

So far, everything looks fine.
All fields are based on Table A.
The button source is also Table A, and the associated record picker is “Account”.

When I click the button, the automation/script is triggered, but I immediately notice that the input variable is not the one selected in the second record picker.

This is the main issue, as it breaks the entire model — I can't determine which bank was actually selected. The script receives the full array.!--endfragment>!--startfragment>

 

I might be misconfiguring the variables, but I can't find a way to tell the platform to capture only the value from the second record picker.

I'm considering using an intermediate table to enforce a 1:1 relationship, though I'm not entirely sure how to integrate that into the interface.
Alternatively, I could trigger an n8n webhook to populate the 1:1 table temporarily, until the bank connection is fully established. Still exploring options.

Or even redesign the whole thing.

Thanks again

Luis

Ah I see!  Currently buttons can only take source values from one place, and so we’re not able to feed in the data from the two separate record pickers I’m afraid:

As a workaround, what if you added a checkbox field for your automation to use?

The idea would be to use a ‘Find record’ action to look for the account with the checkbox ticked, and then link them together, and to also clear the ‘Confirm’ checkbox, and I’ve updated the original base with it:

 

Mmm, I hadn’t considered the checkbox idea.

Yes, I was reading through the documentation on buttons. It’s clearly a limitation of my current design, given the options available in the interface.

As for the checkbox, I see some potential drawbacks. From what I understand, there could be conflicts if multiple users are interacting with the interface simultaneously. For example, if two checkboxes are active at the same time, I’m not sure how the find function would reliably associate one with the other without causing confusion.

Also, I believe — though I still need to review the base and think it through — that the button can be triggered even if the checkbox isn’t active. I’m confident that this particular scenario can be filtered or controlled at the automation level somehow.

I started working on a solution last night — still pending confirmation that it behaves as expected — using n8n and a 1:1 table. I’ll need to rewrite the entire user flow to accommodate it.

That said, I’ll keep the checkbox idea in mind. I genuinely hadn’t considered it before, and it might prove useful in parts of the project. I think it’s a smart approach.

Thanks again.

!--endfragment>

Terms & Conditions