Submitted on03-21-201806:47 AMSubmitted byJeff_Thorpeon03-21-201806:47 AM
Add a feature that will allow flow to disable event firing when updating a SharePoint list item, so that the Flow doesn't get stuck in a loop. Currently if I create a flow with a SharePoint list trigger when item is created or modified and have the Flow update a field in the item the loop gets stuck in a loop. One workaround is to add logic to check if the field(s) still need to be updated and if not then don't update the item but even in that case the flow will be triggered twice. It just makes sense to have an option that will allow Flow to update an item without triggering an event that will cause the same Flow or another Flow to run against the item again.
... View more
After thoroughly reviewing this idea, we have decided not to proceed with this idea for a couple of reasons.
SharePoint events are no longer event receiver based and are performed using webhooks or polling where applicable
Other Office 365 applications and internal systems like auditing may and will rely on such changes like updates to items, files and other entities in SharePoint
However, that said, we understand the crux of the issue which is to help avoid loops. We will work with the flow team to come up with a generic model/pattern that applies across data source/connections for similar scenarios.
Thanks all for your input and please submit/vote your ideas as we are actively monitoring the ideas forum.
Submitted on02-22-201806:18 AMSubmitted bybizoyon02-22-201806:18 AM
My company has a lot of approval workflows that require custom options (outside of "Approve" and "Reject") being delivered in email format. And whenever a custom option is selected and the Flow starts up again it's important to collect notes surrounding why that custom options was selected to pass back to the approver in many cases. My company has countless workflows that require this simple functionality (as I'm sure man y other companies do). This feature already exists in the "start an approval" action, it would save my development team a lot of coding and maintenance if microsoft Flow could also provide this feature in the Send Email With Options action.
... View more
Submitted on04-24-201802:48 AMSubmitted byLeeHarrison04-24-201802:48 AM
Link to original question https://powerusers.microsoft.com/t5/I-Found-A-Bug/Send-Email-with-Options-Formatting/m-p/109505#M2100 (The following is also present in Logic Apps which is where I originally found the issue before replicating in Flow) When using the Send Email with Options action, if using more than 2 options the formatting in the sent email is a little odd. It would be good to have more control over how these options display i.e. stacked vertically/horizontally etc Email with 2 options Email with 3 options
... View more
We do not plan to allow the customization of the formatting of these emails. However, you can use rich text in the Approvals actions themselves (see here), and we plan on adding custom options to these actions (see here).
Submitted on04-24-201806:51 AMSubmitted bydhockon04-24-201806:51 AM
Hi, I would like the ability for emails regarding items in SharePoint having been created or modified to come from firstname.lastname@example.org or some generic email with the SharePoint site's name showing as the sender, just like in SharePoint Designer, instead of these general notification emails showing up as coming from the Flow author (i.e., me). This is for the "Office 365 Outlook Send an email" action, unless there is another action I can use for that.
... View more
We not plan on adding this feature, but you can already accomplish something almost identical to this via two different mechanisms. If you want a generic email like email@example.com, that's supported via the Mail - Send an email notification action.
This connector works the same as the normal connectors, but instead of using a user account it acts as its own Flow based connector. Therefore when you send emails using it, the message will read as coming from firstname.lastname@example.org and display like the following:
Alternatively, if you want it to come from an email inside the domain you can do that by using a Shared mailbox, as called out below in the comments.
We don't have any plans to change (or add to) the behavior of Switch Case. Switch case is a common programming concept, as as best as we can tell, each branch is always about each Case equaling a value. This type of scenario can already be accomplished today in 2 ways though:
1. You can use nested conditions -- in each condition you can evaluate using whatever expression you'd like.
2. You can use nested if() expressions inside the Switch On.
Personally, I would recommend #2 as that keeps your flow clean - rather than nested conditions which can be difficult to work with. If you had 3 cases it would look something like:
One other thing I'd like to point out is that this approach also gives you much more flexibility than you could ever had if we added contains() to switch case -- for example, you could go down a branch if a string contained one string OR another string.
Submitted on11-03-201609:34 AMSubmitted byI_like_PIon11-03-201609:34 AM
This isn't meant as a rant if it comes off as such. I just experienced my first bad flow pinning my flow count, and now i am out for the month. I have since read many peoples confusion or complaint about how flow counts. A benfit of Flow is that MS's servers are online 24/7. But I don't always need that. I could build and run my flows from my desktop just fine (in fact via script and task manager I do, and it costs me nothing). Flow could empower so many more people if it werent for some of these ridiculous Flow is also a bit user centric, if I get canned and my account is turfed my flows die with them (perhaps this has been addressed). I bring it up because it illustrates there are personal flows and corporate flows. Perhaps flow could learn from the power BI model. i.e. I build personal flows locally and then publish those that have a more enterprise need. My flow count is driven off what I automate online. And I learn how to build better flows more frequently because I have ready and easy access locally. I can also dry run my flows locally before I publish them to make sure they dont kill my counts. Perhaps i am just extremely ignorant, this already exists in some form, and I haven't RTFM. ... on that, more training material would be lovely. Non-rant over.
... View more
I am currently able to make the user to use the Flow without any admin's permission in case the Self sign up is acceptable even when Offide365 tile is hidden with deleted license. When I wish to restrict the user's utilization of Flow as an internal security measure, I am unable to make a limit only on each of the tenant. That is very inconvenient for me. As a consequence, I hope you forbid the users with the disabled license to use the Flow because of security concerns.
... View more
There is a difference between licensing product features in an application (like Microsoft Flow) and permissions to access an application in the first place.
Licenses can be used to grant or remove features. For example, if I want to enable the custom connector feature I can assign the Flow Plan 1. If you enable/disable the Flow for Office 365 plan, that enables the features that come with that plan, such as Team flows.
However, licenses shouldn't be used as a mechanism to grant/remove access to the whole applications (to block/allow login in the first place). For that, Azure AD is the recommended approach. You can use Azure AD conditional access to ensure that users in your organization login in the right place, or even blocked entirely. You should be using conditional access if security is your concern, not licenses.
Submitted on06-07-201911:31 AMSubmitted bydbroon06-07-201911:31 AM
Provide functionality to update properties like we have in SSOM - SystemUpdate(false) - method. This would be most useful when updating items and not triggering an endless loop when using ItemCreated or modified action in Flow. Also, this is useful when you want to update metadata without causing another major or minor version.
... View more
Please refer to this idea that already suggested same or in some cases similar idea and was declined before. At this time, SharePoint product team has no plans to support system update capability for SharePoint Online.