The filters present in the Action Criteria are applied only on the source data but not on the target. For example, If Source data have multiple records with Same account number as below - [img]https://d1qy7qyune0vt1.cloudfront.net/gainsight-en/attachment/RackMultipart20180507-124486-1qnv267-Sample_inline.jpg[/img] Now if we try to update this exclude the record with value yes by using it in criteria and and apply the identifier on Account then the rule is updating all the records including the Field [b]Exclude[/b] which has Yes too. So user is requesting to post as an enhancement request where the Action criteria is applied on target too.
It's a fairly common use case to need to identify the two (or three, four, five, etc...) most recent data records in the rules engine to then take action on said data. However, how do you actually make this happen? This video shows you how. The use case is that I want to load the status field (red, yellow, or green) from my two most recent EBR activities. I have created two fields on the company object - one for the most recent EBR status and one for the second most recent EBR status. Here's how I made it work. [video]https://player.vimeo.com/video/325961279[/video]
If you go to c360 or r360 and edit the attributes section you can see that you can rename the field to whatever you would like. Which is great! However if I want to use the field in another area after renaming it or if someone else comes through and tries to add that field (now renamed) to the summary for instance, it cannot be found and the field path is not displayed In this image I renamed Account - CSM > Super duper example [img]https://d1qy7qyune0vt1.cloudfront.net/gainsight-en/attachment/Image20190618at2-01-10PM_1-cbbc8a8f-e882-45ce-8879-d1246aa358a3-274866425.png[/img] After saving there is no way to tell what that field name is referencing If I go to summary I cannot find my field [img]https://d1qy7qyune0vt1.cloudfront.net/gainsight-en/attachment/Image20190618at2-03-01PM-1221e01d-6b20-4b92-9b55-87c7f8acc80e-1580170777.png[/img] I think it would be super helpful to show the original field name and or path so that it can be referenced again.
Edit: I found that rules engine is not capable of this from the following post. Would still like to know if someone has a better use case for my problem... [url=https://community.gainsight.com/conversations/removing-tags-via-rule-5bc73e1be4b04588aaf86cb1]https://community.gainsight.com/conversations/removing-tags-via-rule-5bc73e1be4b04588aaf86cb1[/url] Does anyone know how to add/remove tags through the rules engine, or is it not possible? This would be a good way to label accounts based on in-system attributes rather than the longer way of creating new fields for this use case. For some high level background, we are looking to label accounts for an "implementation watch" if one or more products they own does not show a status of "in production". We are an on prem software without usage data so filling in implementation status by account is manual and only for our top x accounts. Any other ideas are welcome!
How do you pull accounts when no contacts meet the criteria, not the contacts that meet the criteria
I'm trying to pull together a list of accounts that do not have specific contact fields populated. What I created though is just returning the contacts that meet the criteria. For example, I want a list of Accounts that do not have any Project Manager contacts assigned. Account + Project Manager = null returns the contacts that are not Project Managers, but it doesn't mean there aren't contacts that are a Project Manager. I'm not sure how to incorporate the additional/different qualifier that returns the contacts that aren't a Project Manager only for the Accounts for which there is no Project Manager. Thoughts?
Idea. Change the Quick Filter (Search) Section in the S3 Connector to Default to Contains, rather than Equals.
In other areas when you're doing a quick search using the area in the red box (in the image), it defaults to a 'Contains' search. But in the S3 it defaults to an 'Equals' search. Is it possible to change this search to a 'Contains' to match the other areas? [img]https://d1qy7qyune0vt1.cloudfront.net/gainsight-en/attachment/S3ConnectorSearchFeature-6bd776a8-e898-4112-899e-c115b19b1264-2096334340.png[/img]
We want to be able to push text from a specific Timeline record into a Text field in SFDC object. Timeline body is RichText SFDC object field type is Text We could define a rule that does it. But the RichText was pushed with all the HTML special characters and made the text unreadable. It would be great if GS can convert the RichText into plain Text. Thanks, Einat
I am trying to compare two fields in criteria before running an action. My rule is moving Stage from GS to SFDC. I want to see if the value has changed and only upload if different. My issue is the GS field is a lookup to a pick-list (shown as IDs) and the SFDC field is a pick-list (with values). There is a field which shows names but then it is Text to Pick-list. It seems this is not a possible compare as the drop down box only shows the same field in both. Can you only compare same field types? is there any ideal work around? [img]https://d1qy7qyune0vt1.cloudfront.net/gainsight-en/attachment/RackMultipart20180524-89118-1gm6425-2018-05-24_16-09-28_inline.jpg[/img]
You can see in this rule history that this rule has started to fail. The log reads the reason, which is something I've seen with rules that have actions. My rule doesn't have any action, only fetches, merges and transforms. It has never been an active rule, and all of these runs are manual. Recently it has started to fail, the stated reason is that the rule is not active. I'm not sure why this would have changed, nothing has changed on my end. Again, I've seen that message before, but only on rules that have actions. I have another rule that I just ran successfully that also doesn't have actions, but does not throw that error. Things I can guess, perhaps there's a specific class of objects that can't be included on rule runs that are inactive? The work-around is to activate the rule, but that seems really silly for a rule that isn't scheduled, only needs test runs and doesn't have any actions. [img]https://d1qy7qyune0vt1.cloudfront.net/gainsight-en/at
I noticed some odd behavior on behalf of one of my customer's rule chains this morning. They had a chain of three rules that weren't dependent on one another and were scheduled to run on a daily basis. One of the rules in the chain stopped working altogether a few days ago due to a Salesforce permissions issue, so it failed right away. On the same day that rule failed, the rest of the rule chain stopped executing beyond that date as well, even though the other two rules were still executing successfully. Is this expected behavior? If so, I would think this needs to be fixed.
There are tons of topics based on calculation of NPS score and the challenges in various parts of Gainsight, but I haven't come across an answer for this specific question (feel free to drop link if I missed it!)... We're looking to run a transactional NPSx on our support scores over a period of x months. Ideally we'd like to create a rule that sets a support score off of these metrics, however I cannot find a way to calculate true NPS. 1) Has there been a solution implemented to help this issue that I'm missing? 2) Are there any best practice workarounds for transactional NPSx scores? i.e. if sum of detractors > promoters = red?
Are there plans to export meta data behind Rules and Powerlists? It would be helpful to have a bulk export so that we can search for certain criteria checks to know which Rules and Powerlist need to be adjusted when we make data changes. It would also be helpful to have a single export so that we can integrate with source control (e.g. github) for version control.
Already have an account? Login
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.