Formula-Defined Records Different Than Inline-Defined?

(0) Share

Report

Posted on by BenKraft

176

I have a Dataverse table "Fruit", with a single column "Name".

I am attempting to use a record defined in a formula:

in my Patch() function, but I'm getting errors like this:

If I change the formula record to use the publisher prefix it works, but I would like to know if that's truly the only solution. I'd much rather use the "display" names as if you were defining the record within Patch():

Why are they different from each other?

Categories:

Building Power Apps

Microsoft Dataverse with Power Apps

I have the same question (0)

All responses (5)

Answers (1)

Sort by

Sunil Kumar Pashikanti 2,318 Moderator on at

Like
a
(1)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

Hi @BenKraft,

This happens because inline records inside Patch are schema‑aware, but formula‑defined records are not shcema-aware.

When you define a record inside Patch, Power Apps knows it belongs to your Dataverse table and automatically maps the display name (Name) to the internal column name.

When you create a standalone record variable, Power Apps treats it as a generic record with no table context, so display names can’t be resolved. In that case you must use the internal (publisher‑prefixed) column names.

So yes, if you're building the record outside Patch, using the internal column names is the correct and expected approach.

✅ If this answer helped resolve your issue, please mark it as Accepted so it can help others with the same problem.
👍 Feel free to Like the post if you found it useful.

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Suggested answer

11manish 3,333 on at

Like
a
(0)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!
They are different because:

Inline record = context-aware (uses display names)

Variable record = untyped (requires logical names)

This is by design in Power Fx

Not a bug

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
Verified answer

timl 37,214 Super User 2026 Season 1 on at

Like
a
(2)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!
Hi @BenKraft

In this instance, the way I would do this is to create a typed record in your formula.

DefaultFruitRecord = Fruit@{Name:"Raspberry"}

Since this 'formula' record is now typed, you can pass it to your call to Patch, without you needing to use the logical/publisher prefixed column names.

Patch(Fruit, Defaults(Fruit), DefaultFruitRecord )

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
BenKraft 176 on at

Like
a
(1)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

@timl

This is exactly what I was looking for! Thank you so much, appreciate the solution-searching. Do you happen to have any docs reference for that kind of syntax or record-typing of that sort? Had no idea it even existed. Is it all contained within the discussion of Type() / RecordOf()?

Was this reply helpful? Yes No
timl 37,214 Super User 2026 Season 1 on at

Like
a
(2)

Report
Copy link

Link copied!

Hi @BenKraft

Thanks for the update. I'm glad that helped!

I did search the Microsoft Learn documentation before I replied initially but I couldn't find any details. I'm not even sure it's been properly documented.

I found out about this syntax through Carlos from the Microsoft Power Apps team. This was at a time that predated UDFs and the app formula property. Beyond the post I wrote at the time below, I unfortunately can't find anything official about this syntax.

https://powerappsguide.com/blog/post/a-use-of-the--operator-you-may-have-been-unaware-of

Was this reply helpful? Yes No