Flow Control: Execute a scenario (sub-scenario)
complete
A
Arnab Chakraborty
Chad Lancour: What's the best method to chaining scenarios together or call a scenario from another scenario?
Adam Warren: It would be great if we could create scenarios that exist as "functions", and could be called and run as single modules inside other, larger scenarios. This would be so, so useful and really powerful.
----------------------------------
Log In
Rafael Sanchez
I believe the Scenarios APP needs to have a wat to send some output variables and the Scenario to be ran needs input variables to be accepted
Ondřej Veselý
complete
Hi all, let me announce that Subscenarios were released to all plans in Make. Try them out using the Scenarios app and if you will have any feedback post it here or reach out to o.vesely@make.com directly. More information in our documentation https://www.make.com/en/help/scenarios/subscenarios. Happy automating
Yasin Hassanien
Ondřej Veselý
How can we use it please advise
TJ
Yasin Hassanien It's under the "Scenarios" app
Ondřej Veselý
Yasin Hassanien: Hi, more information is here in our documentation https://www.make.com/en/help/scenarios/subscenarios
Andrew Sherman
Ondřej Veselý Congrats, thank you
D
Darin Patterson
Merged in a post:
Sequential Scenarios
Daskalos-Cyprus
Our usecases require more than one scenario to be executed in sequence.
A possible solution would be to chain scenarios - define a scenario as the successor of another, which is fired after completion of the first one. Even scheduling with a kind of "initial delay" would help.
Paul Bickmore
Another way to achieve this is to have your 'sub-scenarios' normally turned off and turn them on from your 'calling' scenario, triggering it to run. You can have the sub-scenario turn itself off again when it's done or, as in this example, turn it off from the calling scenario, optionally after a short delay.
in this example, I pass a two-letter code in a JSON payload to the webhook and use a filter to determine which sub-scenario to activate.
Andrew Sherman
This is a must-have feature
Joe K
Another post for me on this topic. Agreeing with Andrew.
I'm currently splitting out functionality into webhooks, but now I have to worry about IP blocking.
What are Make's IP addresses? That's not indicated in BESTPRACTICE link above. Until sub-scenarios are a thing, maybe update the helper context on the webhook modal window with a link to whitelisting info for a given execution region or adding in situ details re: localhost IPs.
Ideally, the future sub-scenario / internal referencing wouldn't be concerned with external access / firewalling.
Other features that would be useful:
1) Add insight into sub-scenario relationships. This is easier if sub-scenarios are a thing (planned for) versus being a bunch of webhooks (URL or email) string matches.
2) Add a flagging / triggering mechanism for sub-scenarios that would allow a control from outside of a given Scenario. Why? Then we can do pseudo environments (Development, Staging, QA, Pre-Prod, Production) tangentially until that's a real feature.
3) Sub-scenario connection juggling / sane re-use. A sub-scenario suggests multiple methods of calling / execution (...like code with sub-routines, function or methods!). One-to-One mapping for triggers needs to be converted to Many-to-One if we're stuck with just Webhook capability. A bunch of different scenarios posting to a given webhook works, but more robust method of logging / sourcing would be helpful.
Maximilian Kuch
Sounds like a great thing to implement!
Mustafa Basaran
I am doing a workaround with WebHooks to call a Sub-Scenario from another one.
Tereza Klobouckova
planned
Stephanie Henry
Tereza Klobouckova: What's the rough ETA on this?
Kevin McKean
Would be nice. Thanks.
Anna Bondarenko
waiting for it
Load More
→