Skip to main content
I have a Rule that creates CTAs, but I'm updating the Bionic Query to, well, make it more complex.





As a results, I need to change the Action that creates CTAs from being based on one Bionic Task to a different Bionic Task. I can't change the source Task for an existing Action, so I'm replicating all the configuration into a new Action on the same Rule.





The new Action is creating CTAs with an identical Title, Type, Reason, and Priority. (And the "Use in identifiers?" checkbox for the Title is checked, for both the new and old Actions.)





However, when I test the Rule, the Excel output tells me:


So, I wanted to confirm if this is the expected behavior, which I'm hoping for:


If two Actions in one Rule (or even Actions in separate Rules) create CTAs with identical "Identifiers", then only [i]one CTA will end up being created.





(This would mean that the "New CTA" column in the Rule results Excel file is a bug, or at least confusing behavior, which we refer to internally as featurebugs ;-)  )
It is my understanding that the rule action checks for any existing CTA for the client that matches the criteria, not just the CTA's being created by that specific rule run. So even if you manually create a CTA that has all of the matching criteria, any rule that runs afterwards will not create an identical CTA.





Someone correct me if I'm wrong though.
Hi Seth,





If both the Actions are identical, then it should not create a new CTA. either from new Action or from new Rule. Can you confirm if both the actions are getting same value in the Name (including tokens)?





Regards,


Hitesh
Hi Hitesh,


I did a little extra sleuthing. A unicode converter told me that actually one of the spaces in the CTA name is a nonbreaking space (unicode 00A0).


<smacks forehead>


<also smacks computer>





I would argue that, for the purposes of Identifiers, spaces should be treated equally to nonbreaking spaces.
Hi Seth,





Glad to here that there's no issue in the system :)





About the spaces part, its something to be thought about. We have heard few feedback that extra spaces should be considered, i will definitely that this to the PM and have a discussion on the same. 





Regards,


Hitesh
Thanks Hitesh. Just to be clear, this wasn't an [i]extra space. This was a nonbreaking space bi]instead of a normal space.





So, I would say that two nonbreaking spaces should be considered the same as two normal spaces, but one space (of any kind) should not be the same as two spaces.
Hi Seth, Since the issue is solved,changing the status to closed. 
Totally fair, Sai. I would just say that I think there's still an opportunity here for spaces and nonbreaking spaces to be treated interchangeably.
Hi Seth,





We have noted down the point and this is pushed to our Backlog and will be picked up as per prioritisation.

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings