Right now Microsoft flow automatically generates names for the dynamic values you want to use from your powerapp.I think it would be beneficial to provide us with the ability te rename / refactor existing parameters for readability etc..I doubt this would be a hard-to-enable update!
Have also posted this in Flow ideas: https://powerusers.microsoft.com/t5/Flow-Ideas/PowerApps-integration-Remove-Rename-parameters/idi-p/...
Please vote for this there also, thanks!
With this should also come an enhancement that allows you to see the newly added or removed Flow Variables in the PowerApps parameters list. I have found myself having to export the existing Flow, and then Import it under a new name, finally reassociatating it with the PowerApp to finally see the added/removed parameters.
This is a must for code maintainability. I have dead parameters on multiple flows, and so have to pass in garbage values from Power App .Run() methods in order to make it work. Hard to believe this isn't a top priority to fix.
Totally agree. Using 'Initializevariable_value' might make sense to a developer, but I thought the PowerApps/Power Automate platforms were marketed towards business users... it needs to make sense to a business user. Even as a developer, I still want to rename this parameter to something that makes sense to me.
What a piece of sh*t that MS hasn't done this after 4 years. Mainly due to other priorities like Dataverse, Model driven apps and other declarative-mode crap all because Greg Lindhorst loathes imperative coding. Grown-ups with CS degrees and a C++/C#/SQL background are being ignored in favour of crappy throw-away application architectures.
We could make the Power Platform shine as it potentially frees us from all the tedious setup/plumbing tasks to get an app running and then concentrate on the clever algorithmic stuff - but then it ties our hands with Excel-derived nonsense.
Sorry, rant over...
MarrinerDev yep I agree. Trouble is, Power Platform seems to be marketed towards business users (who are pro's at Excel) and so makes sense to develop an IDE that fits with something they are familiar with. In reality... most of my work as a contractor comes from business users who try and give up. I try and implement how I would typically engineer software and also get frustrated and give up. I thought it could be a great tool for prototyping at one stage... until I realised it would be quicker to implement the slightly complex 'algorithmic' stuff using a tool that is actually fit for purpose. I'm sure it has a place... somewhere.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.