Skip to main content
I'm just teaching myself process builder and tried to set up a process to propagate address changes in Accounts to Contacts in the Account.  I was using the trailhead article for this.  In order to prevent global changes to lots of data in the database, I restricted the actions (copying address fields from Accounts over to Contacts) in the update action using "Updated records meet all conditions" and setting the filter criteria to just one Account ID.  I though this would restrict the update to just apply to Contacts in that Account.  And I assumed that it would only apply the update if I changed that same Account.  Note I set the criteria to just run, not for specified conditions.  I also set the action to "Update Records" and set the records to "records related to Account" and chose Contacts.  I assumed this meant that any the update would only apply to Contacts related to the Account that is edited.

What actually happened was that when I changed a different Account's address that change got applied both to the Contact record in that other Account AND to the Contacts in the Account I had restricted the update to.  In other words, not only did the update happen to the Contact in an Account that DIDN'T match the ID, it also propagated that change to an unrelated Contact whose Account DID match the ID.  That doesn't make sense to me.  I thought the conditions I set up under the process meant that updates would only apply to related Contact records.

Is this the intended result?  If so, the documentation sure could use some clarity.

Interestingly, when I tested a clone of that process that WASN'T set to be restricted to one Account ID, the process worked as I would expect, changing only the Contacts in the Account that was edited.  But, of course, that means I can't restrict the process to just a few records while I test it.  Thankfully for now, I'm using a developer instance to test in.  Guess I need to look at how it works in a sandbox.
2 Antworten
  1. 10. Okt. 2016, 19:43
    Just a bump to this question.  Is there no one who wants to comment?  Or should I have posted this elsewhere or opened a case?  It seems to me like a potential bug but was hoping to run it by you all since I may be missing something important here.  Thanks.
0/9000