Solved

Possible mismatch between Get Attachment Names action and Loop For Each action?

  • 1 September 2020
  • 3 replies
  • 3 views

Userlevel 3
Badge +9

There is a SharePoint Online list and some items have one or attachments (actually images that I need to integrate with DocGen later). So, I was jumping up and down with Release 107 with all these great new actions. You can imagine I had a good weekend. But now it's Monday and... something doesn't seem to match.



To store the attachments of a SharePoint Online list this is to me the basic component workflow:





Basically: I get the array of names. Then loop through them and store the files. All done.



 



But the pain already shows in the picture. The Get Attachment Names action demands an object (I love these objects and how well they are integrated in the UX) as a result. Instant protest from the action: Must be inside the Loop For Each. ??? The help file clearly shows something else:



I cannot select a collection for output. It has to be an object.



 



Also, the Loop For Each action demands a Collection but won't accept the collection of names embedded in the object.





This is where I get stuck. 



What did I miss? Any light on this is appreciated.

icon

Best answer by kate 2 September 2020, 10:36

View original

3 replies

Hi Woutert,



 



Thanks for raising this! 



The issue lies in the name of your object "objAttNames"; For a technical reason, having "obj" in the variable name causes the "Loop for each" error you're facing.



 



Luckily, there is a quick work around - By changing your variable name for e.g. to "AttNames", you will be able to complete the configuration successfully.



 



This issue has already been reported to the dev team and they have a fix underway. This will no longer be an issue in the coming weeks. Until then, if you could avoid the term "obj" in your variable names, you shouldn't face this again.



 



Please let me know if you have any further questions,



Kate

Userlevel 3
Badge +9
Thanks for solving it. No problem. Being an old-fashioned variable naming convention guy got me this time I guess.
Userlevel 5
Badge +18

@WouterT don't worry, it got several of us 😉

Reply