2

Is this the most elegant way to "do nothing" in Process Builder, or is there a better way?

Default behavior of Process Builder is to "include" records, not "exclude", meaning, your criteria decides if you DO go into each step. When you have a list of many criteria, and/or criteria/steps that are being developed or simply get added over time, I find it more effective to OMIT the same exact logic from every line by EXCLUDING such records at the beginning. Then each line can handle the SUBSET created by the first EXCLUSION criteria.


Flow: Do Nothing

  1. "Wait" for nothing to happen
  2. Set an inconsequential variable

enter image description here


I literally want a step in Process Builder that effectively does nothing (to put a block at the top of a series of Criteria if an initial value is bad). Otherwise, as this list of criteria and routines grows (in multiple Process Builders), I'll need to replicate "entry" logic on each, instead of just one "exit" criteria at the very top.

enter image description here

2 Answers 2

2

I would suggest that rather than Do Nothing, you can omit the criteria when is Account is not new, that will make process cleaner.

Process builder or workflows are meant to perform certain actions based on rules, and not to escape any actions.

Update

You can create a dummy action like updating a record and specify a criteria like OwnerId is null.

So, this criteria will never get satisfied and your dummy update will never get executed.

That could be a workaround.

6
  • The whole point was that makes the entire block of logic easier to maintain. If I omit the first criteria, I have to put it on every other criteria, whether it's 3 or 30.
    – AMM
    Mar 8, 2017 at 21:01
  • Please find updated ans Mar 8, 2017 at 21:44
  • That's already in place (?). I'm not even setting a field - I'm just setting a VARIABLE in the flow, that's it. I was trying to ascertain if it's "too much" or if there is an even simpler way. I may already have the simplest way. Flow says: "Start, then set a dummy variable to 13, end".
    – AMM
    Mar 9, 2017 at 13:06
  • As I just typed that comment: I realized, I may be able to remove the "Wait". It was just habit. I am going to try that just to make it a one-step flow.
    – AMM
    Mar 9, 2017 at 13:07
  • Better not to update the record with dummy value Mar 9, 2017 at 14:19
2

A simple one-step flow appears to do the trick.

  • Create an Assignment to a randomly named variable and set it to any value - be sure it is set as the starting point (click PLUS in top right corner)

enter image description here

  • A warning is issued when saving the flow, because the single step is not connected to anything - not a problem

enter image description here

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .