Skip to main content

Get Support
Have a question? Let's get you an answer!

How Do I...? Troubleshooting Code & Webhooks Developer Zone

Other Help Resources
Wait, there's more! Check out these Community sourced spaces for additional resources.

Zapier Help Center Hire an Expert

Learning Resources
All of our best learning resources can be found here.

Featured Articles Show & Tell Zapier's products AI Hub Zapier Tools Hub

Share your knowledge
Give back to the Community by sharing your automation wins and helping to answer questions.

Share your success See unanswered questions User Groups

Other Learning Resources
Some of our favorite additional ways to upskill your Zapier knowledge.

Zapier Learn Zapier Blog Zapier Webinars

Product Updates
Check out what is new and upcoming with Zapier with our regular product updates.

Product Updates

Early Access Program
Want to join Early Access? Learn more here.

Hello.  im wondering if this is a bug in the AND TEXT IS IN () logic or if im off here

 

i have a zap where im looking for a SLACK reaction - - which will trigger an update to an asana task

 

in my zap - - i start with the SLACK app saying when 👀 eyes are used as a reaction
the next step is a filter condition that says

  • ONLY CONTINUE IF
    • the reaction is used in a set of specific channel
    • AND 
      • its from a set of specific users
    • AND
      • the message user is BOT
    • AND
      • if the reaction text is IN (eyes, tick-green, x)

 

BUT the zap ran against a message in a channel not in my AND clause and failed - which i would expect -

 

BUT made it past my conditions to the last step of the zap (which is find the associated asana task and update it) - - - why though?

 

shouldnt the zap have failed on my first condition and exited?

 

 

 

 

 

Hi @Joe1024 

Help us have full context by posting screenshots showing how all of your Zap Filter step conditions are configured. (only 2 were shown)

 

 

 

Hi @Joe1024! 👋

Thanks for sharing those additional screenshots here. It looks as though you’ve correctly set up the different filter rules to using an AND rule group, so the Zap should be halting the subsequent steps from running. I can’t see any existing bug reports that match this behaviour so I’d recommend contacting our Support team here to have them check the logs for a recent run of the Zap. They’ll be to review the logs for your Zap to better identify what’s causing it to not be halted when not all filter rules are matched. If it is a bug then they’ll be able to open up a bug report on your behalf so that our engineers to investigate further and work on getting it fixed.

Keen to ensure this gets sorted so please do keep us updated on how you get on with the Support team on this!

@Joe1024 

For Asana, the Assignee field expects the internal Asana Assignee ID rather than an email address.

 

thank you both.

@Troy Tessalone i was more worried about the initial logic of the zap getting past STEP 2 from above - - where i am referencing the ASANA User ID

im asking the zap to filter for the SLACK User ID when a react is added to a message

 


 

@Joe1024 and @SamB 

Saw some recent comments on Twitter/X about the same supposed issue with a Filter step continuing when conditions were not met, so maybe this is a bug.

@Joe1024 

One option to try would be to split the Filter into multiple successive Filters each with their own single condition instead of 4 conditions in 1 Filter step to see if that properly handles the filtering logic.

Zap Filter steps count as 0 Tasks in Zap Runs.

 @Joe1024 and @SamB 

Saw some recent comments on Twitter/X about the same supposed issue with a Filter step continuing when conditions were not met, so maybe this is a bug.

Agreed! It does appear to be a bug @Troy Tessalone.

I’ve searched through all the bug reports again and managed to find one that appears to match what’s happening here, I’m so sorry for missing it previously. @Joe1024 - I’ve added you to the list of users being impacted by this issue. I can’t make any promises around when it will be resolved by but we’ll be sure to send you an email notification once a fix is shipped!

In the meantime, Troy’s suggestion of setting up separate filters for each filter rule condition seems like a good potential solution for now. Can you give that a try and report back here to confirm whether that works as hoped? 🤞

Reply


Terms & Conditions