An Automation Rule has some Actions to Create a new entity, but it can only create an entity of the Types/DBâs it is related to.
Use case: I want to create a Rule that triggers when a Client entity has its status change to âInactiveâ, and the action will be to create a new Task entity and assign to the Clientâs manager.
However, my Client DB is not related directly to the Task DB, so there is no option in the Client Rules Actions for âCreate a new Taskâ. I am forced to do it in a script instead.
As a general rule, itâs kinda assumed that if you want to create an entity (e.g Task) based off a trigger on an entity in some other database (e.g. Client) that these types of entity are in some way related (and would therefore have a relationship).
Of course, there are exceptions, but itâs interesting to hear the use cases before rolling out the ability for any automation to be able to create entities in every other possible database.
FYI I have experienced a similar issue when there is a connection between the dbs, but it is an auto-linked relation
I just encountered this situation where creating an entity in an unrelated database would be ideal. The 1st database is used for our recruitment team to manage roles/positions. Then, because of network permissions, an IT admin needs to upload the new/edited position into another system. This IT admin already receives notifications when a position is created or edited.
We now want to create a Task for IT, but want to avoid relating Tasks to Positions because we want to minimize notification overload for recruitment personnel (they are Watchers to receive notifications on edits to the entity, but should not be notified of IT tasks becoming related to positions).
So, for example, weâd like to do the following: Recruitment creates a position. An automation notifies the relevant IT personnel and creates an IT dept task.
So, essentially, we have a situation where the entities are not related in workflows. Theyâre more-so related just in timing/creation. We want to avoid overbearing notifications whenever possible.
The permissions matter might be a complication. It seems to require the user writing the rule to have creator access to both databases.
It strikes me that the Tasks are in fact related to the position, but itâs the excessive visibility/notification that should be addressed.
Is it possible to limit viewer rights to IT tasks for recruitment people? so they wonât get told about new IT tasks, because they canât see them âŚ
Would this limit the notifications that people receive? The one Watch notification setting says âAny event in an entity you are watchingâ, which I interpret as anything that shows up in the âActivityâ log of an entity. I didnât think this was affected by permissions.
Tasks are already restricted to only appear for the users that need to use them.
I need to double check, but I think that if something you canât see is linked to something you can see, then you donât get a notification, since it would be meaningless.
There have been a few times that people showed me in-app notifications that mentioned a restricted entity. But I donât remember if this is one of those instances that created these types of notifications.
