Writing to Multi-select Picklist in Rules Engine (Tag field and others)

Hi Sundar, Did support for multi-select picklists make it into the January release?  I could have easily missed it.  If not, do we have a new target?  Thank you!!

Sundar, I'd like to expand on this idea for the roadmap:

Most ETL connectors allow String type fields to be written to a Picklist field in SFDC.  We do not currently support this.  We only allow writing a picklist directly to a picklist.

Use cases would include having MDA data in a string field that we can then push to a Picklist in a SFDC/Gainsight object.  Current workaround requires one action per picklist value, which is doable but time consuming and often resulting in duplicate work.

Thoughts?

Hi! We have a rule that Upserts to Contacts in SFDC. We have a multi select picklist for roles as contacts can have multiple roles (sponsor, technical, billing, etc.)

Since Tags work as a multi select picklist, we can't remove tags with rules so I thought we would be able to add a role to a Contact. However, when I run my rule it removes all of the Contacts other roles and writes it as Technical.

Is it possible to add a new role in a multi select picklist?

Hi Samantha,

Curious to understand your use case for custom C360 views based on multi select picklist? Can you elaborate regarding how you plan to use that for. Based on your comment , my understanding is - 

If you are selling Product A, Product B and Product C. A customer can buy one or more of the products.

Do you plan to create multi C360 views based on various combinations of A,B and C? Theoretically,You would have to create 7 layouts (Customers who have purchased only A, only B, only C, Both A and B,Both A and C,Both B and C and All of A,B and C) each as a layout for your accounts.

Is my understanding right?

Thanks
Abhishek S

Is there a timeframe for when this will be corrected / implemented?  I keep coming across this problem where I want to set a multi-select picklist (via Rules) in say the CustomerInfo object so can be displayed on the C360 but can't fully do it.  It allows me to write multiple rules (+Field Mapping) to populate each instance of the multi-select but every subsequent rule overwrites the value written by the previous rule.  Honestly I'd view this more as a bug than an enhancement.  If the system allows a multi-select to be chosen as the destinatiion field for rules then it should allow multiple settings to be selected, not just one.  See below as an example of how I'm trying to set this ...

That's a bug to me, too. Doesn't work the way it should. I just overwrote many tags 😕 Hope this will be fixed soon.

Hi.

Recently I got the same scenario where I have to load data to a Multipick list field and I did this using rules. And worked as expected.

You can refer to this link.

Hope this will solve your issue too.

Thanks.

Hi All,

The below-mentioned steps help us to load Data to Multipick List Field.

Recently when I am working with a customer I had this scenario and implemented this via Rules. 

 

Example of your Input Data.

 

The target object has a Multi Picklist Data Type field whose values are like below.

Rules

Reports

JO

 

We need to load and map the data to the respective values in the target field where ever the Account responded as “Yes”  to the Question.

 

We could simply achieve this via rules.

Step 1: Fetch the Input data

Step 2: Choose Transform Task and Create a Case Expression like below.

Provide all the values which are mentioned in the above pic.

The trick we need to apply in the “Then” Section was to append the semicolon to the value. i.e. like ‘Rules;’ (without Single Quotes)

In a similar way create two more case expressions for the fields “Using Reports Module” and “Using JO Module” in the same way.

 

Step 3: In the next transformation, Concat the fields created in step2 to load the target field.

 

Finally, create the Action and select the object and map the Concated field with MultiPicklist filed.

 

Thanks!!!

+1, we recently came across this issue. We were able to hack a solution together using a mix of case expressions and concats but this isn’t ideal or very scalable. 

This still is an issue. I have a rule where we are trying to have parity between SFDC and MDA contact/person information. One action is designed to load an updated multi-select “role” field to the MDA’s person object if the contact record was most recently modified in the MDA. If it was most recently modified in SFDC, then we want to load that “role” value to SFDC’s contact record instead. 

 

Loading to MDA works just fine because SFDC’s multiselect picklist is stored as a “multipicklist” field, as one would expect. And when you map to the MDA’s multiselect, that field as available to map to. See below. 

However, when I try to do the opposite - load from MDA to SFDC, I run into the issue of the MDA picklists being stored as GSIDs and therefore am not allowed to map it to SFDC’s multi-select picklist. Can we please fix this issue somehow?