Skip to main content

I have noticed that the fields required for creating a new RFI in Zapier are different from the fields in the Procore system.

Specifically, in the Procore interface, I am not required to input an assignee when creating a new RFI. However, in the Zapier integration, the assignee field is required. When I run a test in Zapier, it consistently returns the error "Error: assignee_ids invalid".

I'm not sure if this error is occurring because Procore does not actually require an assignee to be specified when creating a new RFI, unlike the Zapier integration.

Could someone please look into this discrepancy and let me know the reason for the difference in required fields between the two systems? I want to ensure the Zapier integration is set up correctly and is in sync with the Procore RFI creation process.

Thank you for your assistance.

Hi @Qichang 

Most Zap app integrations are created and managed by the app developer, so you may want to try reaching out to Procore Support for possible guidance.

Procore API v1 endpoint for Create RFI: https://developers.procore.com/reference/rest/v1/rfis?version=1.0#create-rfi

 

 


Thank you for your reply.


Hi there @Qichang, welcome to the Community! 😁

In addition to reaching out to Procore directly as Troy suggested, I’d recommend contacting our Support team here (select the Report a bug or request a feature option at the bottom of the page) to ask that they open up a feature request for the ability to make that Assignees field not required. Procore’s developers will have access to the the details of the feature request that gets added to our shared issue tracking tool and it will enable us to track user interest in the ability to not have to specify an assignee when creating an RFI. 

Since the assignees field appears to be required by Procore’s API currently and you don’t want to assign the RFI’s, I wonder if you could get around this by creating a new user in Procore (with a name like “Zapier” or “unassigned” etc.) and set the Zap to assign the RFI’s to that user? That way they won’t be assigned to a real user. Do you think that approach could work in the meantime?