I have multi-level approval Flow that captures approval history at each level. Part of the information I am capturing is the Response Summary property of the output of the approval action. Today I went to make some changes to the Flow and the Reponse Summary property has disappeared.
To be more specific the Reponse Summary property has disappeared in the case where the Approval type of the Start an Approval action is "Anyone from the assigned list". If I switch the Approval Type to "Everyone from the assigned list" the Reponse Summary becomes available again. However switching the approval type is not a solution to the problem, the output of the action should be consistent regardless of the Approval type setting (which is how things were just a few short days ago).
Also it's very alarming that the output properties of an action could just disappear like that. Unless the action is marked as preview the interface for the action should be considered a contract between the provider and the consumer and it should not change in a way that breaks existing Flows.
I really hope this is a bug and not a conscious decision to remove this property from the output of the action.
I have made a test on my side and the issue is confirmed on my side.
I afraid that the Response Summary could only support in the approval type of "Everyone form the assigned list",and it is not supported in the approval type of "Anyone form the assigned list" in microsoft flow currently.
So I afraid that there is no way to achieve your needs in Microsoft Flow currently.
If you would like this feature to be added in Microsoft Flow, please submit an idea to Flow Ideas Forum:
I appreciate you looking into the matter but your answer does not address my issue. I was not looking for someone to confirm the observed behaviour, I was trying to find out why the behavior changed.
Until a week ago the Response Summary was included in the output of the action regardless of the value of the Approval Type, now it is not. What I would like to know is why this has changed. Is it a bug or not?
If it is not a bug I would like to know why engineering would push out a breaking change like that.