My question is just: WHY?!
Scenario 1:
I have Table A: when a row_of_ A is added with some column values say (1, 2, 30, 40), AppSheet gives the possibility to trigger the action to add a new row to Table B and directly set the desired values of the newly-added row_of_B to equate row_of_A’s values of (1, 2, 30, 40). All is done with one simple, direct action.
Scenario 2:
HOWEVER, if the desired row_of_B already exists, I cannot do the same and pass row_of_A’s values of (1, 2, 30, 40) which I already have in front of me but cannot pass. Instead, I have to do the following:
- create an action and associate it with Table A, just to select the desired row_of_B, and launch a blind action on Table B
- create the blind action associated with Table B, that will have to:
- Figure-out what row_of_A should be read, using complex expensive expressions that in some cases would also depend on the unreliable _RowNumber.
- Retrieve the desired values, the same (1, 2, 30, 40) that we had all the time and update row_of_B.
The question is: “WHY?”
Why do we have:
AND:
but something like this is made unavailable to users:
Data: set the values of some columns of a row in another table using values from this row
I can see no sense at all and I feel I’m getting crazy, or An answer is much appreciated.
To dear @Suvrutt_Gurjar
Suvrutt_Gurjar:
Please always evaluate sample apps
You are right, I was just joking about its oversimplification
Suvrutt_Gurjar:
If you need further help
Yes please!! Help me answer the WHY question pleeeeeeeaaaaase
Suvrutt_Gurjar:
I did not get the below statement.
It is just an analogy to the case I ask you to do something using some information I possess, however, I don’t give it to you and force you to look for it yourself incurring costs in the process.
Suvrutt_Gurjar:
I believe it is great
The privilege of knowing you is great my friend