Unanswered

Can someone explain this peculiar behavior of creating an entity with lookup value?

(0) Share

Report

Posted on by MrNappa

241

I got this error message when trying to create a new record that contained a lookup field. When investigating it further, I found the following.

My code was set up like:

// Create item
UpdateContext({ 
 reg: { 
 vdt_name: "test",
 vdt_date: Now()
 }
});

// [..] some other code

// add reference to item
UpdateContext({
 reg: Patch( reg, { vdt_refitem: LookUp( RefItems, RefItem=selected.RefItemId ) } )
});

// save the item
Patch( Registrations, Defaults( Registrations ), reg );

This gave me an error "Value must be an entity record" on the final patch to the data source.

However, when I changed it to the following:

// Create item
UpdateContext({ 
 reg: { 
 vdt_name: "test",
 vdt_date: Now(),
 // include the reference now
 vdt_refitem: LookUp( RefItems, RefItem=selected.RefItemId ) 
 }
});

// [..] some other code

// save the item
Patch( Registrations, Defaults( Registrations ), reg );

This code runs and works correctly.

I inspected the contents of the variable in both scenarios, and they both seem to contain all fields that I specified, including the lookup value. The only difference is that in the first instance, the lookup field reference is added later by doing a patch. What makes this not work?

Categories:

Microsoft Dataverse with Power Apps

I have the same question (0)

All responses (2)

Answers (0)

v-yutliu-msft on at

Like (0)

Report
Hi @MrNappa ,

That's a little strage...

Did you make other changes about variable reg?

Could you tell me Registrations table and RefItems table's structure?

I've made a test and found that the two ways to create variable will result the same data.

Here's my test:

UpdateContext({ reg: { vdt_name: "test", vdt_date: Now() } }); UpdateContext({ reg: Patch( reg, { vdt_refitem: {id:"aa"} } ) });

UpdateContext({ reg1: { vdt_name: "test", vdt_date: Now(), vdt_refitem: {id:"aa"} } });

And the result:

Best regards,

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
MrNappa 241 on at

Like (0)

Report

Hi Phoebe,

The field is a simple Lookup field to another table.

Also -- after some further testing, I it might have something to do with async behavior of the patch command?
If you look at the following test:
~~You can see that only the 2nd patch is 'problematic'. If I include the lookup field in the original UpdateContext, or if I Patch it with a cached value, the final patch seem to work correctly.~~
Update: Actually, when I comment out the 2nd patch line, the third patch also gives an error. So that was a false positive.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No