cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Let us put Initialize Variables into a Scope if the Scope is at the top

I get why you want Initialize actions at the top but PLEASE let me put them in a Scope at the top. Because I cant copy actions Im building a TON of variables to hold blocks of text and dynamic content that I can reuse so I have like 30 Initialize Actions at the top that I cant hide. 😞

Status: Under Review

Thank you for the suggestion.

Comments
iso
Advocate I
Advocate I

@FastTrack you nailed it.  Would just add that as in any well-designed programming language, having a scoping construct that allows the user to fully control variable scope is a must.  So in your one action to init/def them all, I would also ask MS to add a scope field because atm all vars have global scope and we all know (or should know!) where that leads.  Of course, in simple flows, it's not an issue.  But let's imagine some huge and insanely complicated flow with lots of parallel branching, where all the way down the flow you make a typo with a var name in a Set Variable action that ends up changing the value of the wrong var that is also used above in another branch and before you know it you're stuck in the debugging session from hell.  

 

That's why scope exists, so we don't have to mess around with managing var naming schemas on top of everything else we need to do in an already crowded heterogenous environment (ie many moving parts) that flows typically tend to be.

entarome
Regular Visitor

I need this so much...

livingstonep
Kudo Commander

this has been Under Review for nearly TWO YEARS...

GOoS83
Regular Visitor

Can this be considered for next release?

 

ANCC
Frequent Visitor


This still needs to happen - 3 years since it was suggested. 

I am using parallel branches to make the length shorter, but now I just have them spread across the width instead. Marginally better, but not perfect. 

SMay
Frequent Visitor

+1 for this. Variables are helpful in tons of situations, but having to see a huge list of them is messy and far from ideal. Quite disappointing that this is still just "under review".

rjhale
Advocate IV

Maybe it's just me not noticing, but it seems to me that almost all development around the traditional "Cloud Flows" has either stopped entirely or been very marginalized.  The only thing that seems to matter is the new RPA stuff which a lot of us don't really care about because we simply don't have a need for it.  My guess is that small features like this that have been "Under Review" for 3 years will never see the light of day.  

BrianKennemer
Kudo Kingpin

Yeah, I've been working with MS products since the mid-90s and this is sort of a pattern. They build most of a solution and then rely on partners to fill in the gaps with premium products and then go into maintenance mode where they add very few new features. From a business perspective, I get it but as a user, it's pretty frustrating. 

trashheap
Frequent Visitor

yeah, agree.  This seems to be common with MS.  Build a good product.  But never build a truly *great* product.  Its the small details which move a product from just good to getting that long term buy-in from their customers by being truly GREAT!  lets face it, this platform has LOTS of issues like this that make it a proper pain to use.  Like everyone else I battle through it, but if another option were to appear id migrate in a heartbeat because MS haven't built a truly great product.  And this is purely because $$ don't stack up for this kind of dev when the bean-counters approve the dev time.