Loop reads Array OK, but GUI update an existing record fails

💬 Workflows
1

Hello

this is my first post after 2 weeks trying to build my workflow.
My data is coming from an API request in a loop which works fine.
Then i need to prepare for an SQL update (an existing record) which also runs in a loop.

However I am getting this error:
Error: Undefined binding(s) detected when compiling SELECT. Undefined column(s)" [id] query: select count(*) as "count" from "products" where "id" = ?

However as you can see from the attached screenshot the {{code2.data[index].id}} does have a value.

workflow
workflow2514×945 264 KB

What is wrong with my setup?

1 Like
2

I have exactly the same issue and it is SOO frustrating. I'm hoping if it's a bug that RT can fix it quickly, or if there's another way to do this I need to know asap.

1 Like
3

Hi @Joanna_Wu

this is what i ended-up doing:

image
image1802×807 133 KB

and it works OK for me.

Here's the code for it:

code_prepare_products_for_bulk_update

function serializeObject(obj) {
    const serializedObj = {};
    for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(obj)) {
        if (typeof value === 'object' && value !== null) {
            serializedObj[key] = JSON.stringify(value);
        } else {
            serializedObj[key] = value;
        }
    }
    return serializedObj;
}

const convertedData = query_loop_through_selected_products.data.map((item) => {
    const product = item.product;
    const convertedProduct = serializeObject(product);
    return convertedProduct;
});

return convertedData;

The above code will also handle complex JSON objects if they do exist as values in any of the key:value pairs, and therefore will stringify it.

query_SQL_update_products

const batchSize = 35; // Set the desired batch size
const results = [];
const delay = ms => new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, ms));


async function processBatch(batch) {
  const batchResults = await Promise.all(
    batch.map((value) => query_SQL_update_products_lambda.trigger())
  );
  results.push(...batchResults);
}
async function processElements() {
  const data = code_prepare_products_for_bulk_update.data;

  for (let i = 0; i < data.length; i += batchSize) {
    const batch = data.slice(i, i + batchSize);
    await processBatch(batch);
    await delay(1000); // Introduce a 2-second delay before the next batch
  }
  return results;
}

return processElements();

The loop block will also do the single record updates in batches, so you can also fine-tune the batch-size and delay between updates.

4

Hey folks!

Sorry about the late reply here, it looks like this is a bug - I've gone ahead and filed it with the dev team and can let you know here when there's a fix.

Thanks for providing such a detailed workaround here @Periklis_Vasileiou!

Out of curiosity, if you set the changeset as an "Object" instead of using "Key value pairs" does the query work correctly?

5

Hi @Kabirdas

thanx for replying, I thought I was doing things wrong and that was the reason you did not reply, nevertheless, your feedback is valuable, and now I need to get back to this approach so I can comment further.
Considering the need to make a working solution, I am not bothered at all to go back and work on the former solution, only because you confirm (and I need this confirmation) that there is a bug and it is not me that I am trying to do something to work but in the wrong way, therefore your feedback is really valuable.
I will try to test your suggestion, however, I do believe I tried that also with the same results. To my understanding, this is OK meaning that if there is a bug, it is consistent and either solutions, key-value pairs, or object behave the same way and produce the same error. To me, this is better than having 2 different errors.
Bottom line, I will try again, what I reported, with key-value pairs and object just to confirm what I experienced.
In any way, I hope I am not wasting your time and I am reporting real bugs (when I sse one)

6

Not at all! I'm just a bit backlogged at the moment so I've been taking a little longer to get to threads. I'm happy to help in cases where something isn't configured correctly too :slightly_smiling_face:

Thanks for reporting the bug, it helps reproduce the behavior someone was reporting in another thread. Let me know what you find!