Please Share your Product Ideas with us!

All ideas are welcome. Just because the Idea doesn't make it into the product immediately does not make it a bad idea.

Separate Mapping Actions from Rule Automation Actions


When the Business Users compete the Field Mappings, they have very limited understanding how the Actions affect the Automation, and they should not have to care.  They especially should never be asked to populate RuleSQL or Relationships as part of Field Mapping.   


Can we please separate the Field Mapping Actions from the Rule Automation Actions.    It is possible that a Field Mapper enters an action of Default, with a comment to "Default all Direct Ship Customers to X'.      Because this affects only Direct Ship customers, it's not really a Default, but a Rule.


As the Rule Generator, I would change my "Rule Action" from Default (inherited from the mapping action) to Rule, and then run the Automation.   I would not have to Change the Field Mapper action or comments, which sometimes can cause problems.


Hopefully 90% of the time those fields are identical, but in the few cases where we have to "Fix" a mapping to support automation we can shield that from the business users.

  • Guest
  • Feb 1 2017
  • Future consideration
  • Attach files
  • +1