Help

Automation to update a field via linked field

Topic Labels: Automations
685 2
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
qwik3r
5 - Automation Enthusiast
5 - Automation Enthusiast

Not sure if this is possible but I'm trying to use an automation that updates fields based on something that occured in a linked field. 

e.g. 

Table A contains events:

  • Event 1
  • Event 2
  • Event 3

Table B contains attendees for each event and are linked together.

In table A I'd like to select something from a drop down to trigger the automation "when record is updated" and then it will update a field for each record that it's LINKED to. 

So far it seems like there's a way to do this since you can select the first table (a) and then do a 'find records' based on the linked field. I can pull the ID of the linked fields but when it comes time to update a field it doesn't look at the linked fields, it looks at the first table's fields since you have to select that table. 

Ultimately I'm trying to make this as dynamic as possible so that I don't have to create multiple automations where I have to manually select the table. The idea is I can continue to add events, and continue to add attendees and just updating the one 'action field' (select field) will continue to work indefinitely. 

Hopefully that makes sense! 

Any help would be appreciated, thanks! 

2 Replies 2

Hi @qwik3r!
Find Records creates a list of records. In order to select all record IDs from a Find Records step to use in the next Update Records step, you'll need to use a Repeating Group action. This loops through each record in the Find Records result and applies the Update Record step for each.
example3.png

example2.png

Hope that helps! 
-Stephen

qwik3r
5 - Automation Enthusiast
5 - Automation Enthusiast

Thanks. I was doing that but the issue really was wanting to use individual tables rather than one master table. I wanted to select the original table and have it update fields dynamically instead of selecting the second table each time. It was more a matter of workflow. I wound up deciding to just use the second table as a master table so that it can scale.