You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We have an object that, when updated, we want to trigger some changes on another object. We had two triggers to do this updating because each had differing and somewhat complex when logic. When we updated the first object only one of the updates on the second would take place.
Since it sounds like this is intentional/known functionality, I'd like to propose a way to indicate that a trigger should run in its own query (but still in the same transaction). This would allow us to create simpler easier-to-understand triggers instead of trying to stuff a bunch of logic in one mega trigger.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Reference this thread in Discord: https://discord.com/channels/841451783728529451/849377751370432573/1237909891641770085
and this (closed) issue: #7334
We have an object that, when updated, we want to trigger some changes on another object. We had two triggers to do this updating because each had differing and somewhat complex
when
logic. When we updated the first object only one of the updates on the second would take place.Since it sounds like this is intentional/known functionality, I'd like to propose a way to indicate that a trigger should run in its own query (but still in the same transaction). This would allow us to create simpler easier-to-understand triggers instead of trying to stuff a bunch of logic in one mega trigger.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: