Answered

Can't get ItemInternalId field from loop

(0) Share

Report

Posted on by agneum

204

I have an array of data that gets passed into a foreach block in my flow.

Here's how the structure looks like when I download to preview the output:

[{"@odata.etag":"W/\"JzEsNTYzNzE0NDU3Nic=\"",
"ItemInternalId":"ce8f4afe-16cb-4b7d-a4f5-b23b029e8bf3","Locator":"TestA","DirPartyTable_PrivateForParty_PartyNumber":"","IsInstantMessage":"No","IsMobilePhone":"No","CountryRegionCode":"","LogisticsLocation_FK_LocationId":"000000912","ElectronicAddressRoles":"","LocatorExtension":"","IsPrimary":"No","Description":"","Type":"None","IsPrivate":"No"},
{"@odata.etag":"W/\"JzEsNTYzNzE0NDU3Nyc=\"","ItemInternalId":"2d702861-6901-4e11-a182-0debfb52f382","Locator":"TestB","DirPartyTable_PrivateForParty_PartyNumber":"","IsInstantMessage":"No","IsMobilePhone":"No","CountryRegionCode":"","LogisticsLocation_FK_LocationId":"000000913","ElectronicAddressRoles":"","LocatorExtension":"","IsPrimary":"No","Description":"","Type":"None","IsPrivate":"No"}.. etc etc etc.

I want to read every row using the for each and insert this data into a SQL table. I use a dynamic expression to get the fields.

This one works fine:
items('Apply_to_each')?['Locator']

But for some reason

items('Apply_to_each')?['ItemInternalId'] returns nulls, as if the values aren't there.

Why is this? Does anyone know what I could try?

Categories:

Building flows

I have the same question (0)

All responses (4)

Answers (1)

agneum 204 on at

Like (0)

Report

Bump!

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
v-litu-msft on at

Like (1)

Report
Hi @agneum,

Your expression is not a problem, I can use it to extract the ItemInternalId of each item:

It may be caused by the value in the Apply to each action is null, or you could use Parse JSON action, put these data into the content field, then use the following Schema, the dynamic content of ItemInternalId could be used directly in the following steps:

{ "type": "array", "items": { "type": "object", "properties": { "@@odata.etag": { "type": "string" }, "ItemInternalId": { "type": "string" }, "Locator": { "type": "string" }, "DirPartyTable_PrivateForParty_PartyNumber": { "type": "string" }, "IsInstantMessage": { "type": "string" }, "IsMobilePhone": { "type": "string" }, "CountryRegionCode": { "type": "string" }, "LogisticsLocation_FK_LocationId": { "type": "string" }, "ElectronicAddressRoles": { "type": "string" }, "LocatorExtension": { "type": "string" }, "IsPrimary": { "type": "string" }, "Description": { "type": "string" }, "Type": { "type": "string" }, "IsPrivate": { "type": "string" } }, "required": [ "@@odata.etag", "ItemInternalId", "Locator", "DirPartyTable_PrivateForParty_PartyNumber", "IsInstantMessage", "IsMobilePhone", "CountryRegionCode", "LogisticsLocation_FK_LocationId", "ElectronicAddressRoles", "LocatorExtension", "IsPrimary", "Description", "Type", "IsPrivate" ] } }

Best Regards,
Community Support Team _ Lin Tu
If this post helps, then please consider Accept it as the solution to help the other members find it more quickly.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
agneum 204 on at

Like (0)

Report

Still doesn't work. My Create Table SQL definition is as following:

The flow looks like this:

End result in the SQL table:

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Verified answer

agneum 204 on at

Like (0)

Report

@v-litu-msft

I could get the fields out if I mapped the value to another column:

I've dropped and created the Table multiple times, and all the columns are of type "varchar(max)". So it makes absolutely no sense to me.

The only thing I can think of is that the "Insert Row (V2)" action is bugged, in that it maybe assumes the table definition and keeps it in some metadata. Perhaps at one point I created the SQL-table without this ItemInternalId column, and recreated the table at a later stage, but the flow still thinks the old definition for insert should be used:

I.e. the part of the code that says "Insert into Table (Locator, DirParty... etc etc)"
is using the old column definition when it should be " Insert into Table (ItemInternalId, Locator , etc etc etc)

Looks like a bug to me.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No