How to duplicate or move control depending on approver

[IgnacioOrtiz]

Hi all, this is my first post here, hopefully this is a good question as searching for it simply didn't return anything, or maybe I'm searching the wrong thing...

I'm building the following App screen, the backend is SharePoint, there will be 2 levels of approvals that will be handled by Power Automate, and the Action field is a choice type that will tell the workflow it has been either approved or rejected.

This brings me to the question. How can I duplicate the Action control, or switch it from First to Second approver "section" (I will use conditional logic to show/hide fields depending on the requestor/approver1/approver2 looking at the screen) without creating a second Action field?

Does it seem better to have the option to Approve or Reject bound to an icon button within the form section instead of a DataCard value?

Thank you for taking the time to look at this!

[AJ_vizMan]

Hi @IgnacioOrtiz  - I think it is important to capture the decision (Approve/Reject) by Approver 1 and same goes to Approver 2.

As you mentioned, use conditional logic to show/hide fields on basis of decision by approver 1.

Use logic on visible property of control in Approver 2 section

[IgnacioOrtiz]

@AJ_vizManthank you for your reply but that was not my question, I do understand it's important and why I'm asking about to duplicate or shift the control from position so that the second approver can also use it, or use icons which is not ideal in my scenario as this can also be done through the SharePoint item (This will allow the WF to set the correct Status depending on the level of approval).

In SharePoint it's easy, PowerAutomate clears the Action that is a required field, and unless it's not updated the flow won't trigger.

[IgnacioOrtiz · Accepted solution]

Actually... I just have to shift the "Action" field to the bottom of the approval form and then show/hide the rest of the fields and it will always be there by the bottom. Apparently I just needed to think this one through a bit. Thanks @AJ_vizMan for your reply.