Skip to main content
I'm running into a problem - when I build the "Setup Rule" I'm getting the exact data I'm after.  Then in the "Setup Action" I'm breaking down the Actions by the Reason of CTAs.  [Makes it easier on me].  But when I test the rule to make sure everything is getting set to how I want - it's duplicating the data [on every action].





For testing - I went through in went down to 1 Action, and focused in on one account.  And as before, the Setup Rule is displaying one item - but when testing, it's displaying two items.





My Setup Rule data [CTA Data] is rather simple, Days Past Due != Null & Closed Date = Null & CTA Type = X.  And then in my Setup Action, I'm focusing on a particular Reason.  





I've not had this problem when testing other rules - so I'm cautious to actually run this rule with it showing duplicates in the test.  Has someone had this happen before?  Or is there something additional?  





As always, thank you for your time and feedback everyone!





Sagan
I have a guess (only a guess) that you have more than 1 CTA meeting your criteria in the Setup Action section.





I've found in the "Close CTA" Rules, I have to focus much more on the "3 - Setup Action" section than the "2 - Setup Rule" section. You may want to see if you can get more specific--filter down more--in the Setup Action section.
Hi Matthew!





Sadly, I've tested both ways and same results.  I even used only a single account that I know would only have one CTA that matched what I was after.  And in preview of Setup, it showed that one CTA.  But when in Setup Action, the test came back with two results.  I even matched the filters I had setup in Setup Rule - and still same thing, two results.  I'm pretty sure at this point it's a duplicate.  But it's just odd that I don't have this problem on any of my other rules.





After a few rough months with the Rules Engine, I follow the same as you.  With having the Setup Rule get me the bulk of the Data, and then Setup Action to narrow it down.  :)





I'll probably end up bugging Support on Monday.  This doesn't seem like a Friday afternoon problem. 
Hi Sagan,





Whats the Base Object you are using, if Call to Action, i would suggest you to use Close CTA via ID instead of Type. 





As mentioned by Matthew, when closing via Type and Reason, it will consider other CTA's of same account with same Type and Reason.





But when you say its duplicating CTA, is it showing the same CTA's in Excel Sheet after the Rule Run?
Hi Hitesh,





I have the CTA ID in the  Setup Rule.  It's how I'm double checking to make sure that I'm only pulling the single record (I'm testing for).  And when previewing through Setup Rule, I'm seeing just the one CTA I'm after.  But - when in Setup Action and I'm test it, that's when I'm getting the duplicate record.  But since CTA ID isn't coming over - I'm not able to confirm if it's a duplicate of the same record (if so, don't really care - just more annoying), or if some who it's picked up a second record somehow.





My main issue is that in Setup Rule, the 'Preview' is perfect.  I'm getting the one record I'm after.  But when in Setup Action and testing - I'm now getting two records.  Both with the same filters and without.





EDIT - I did some additional testing, as I have more Data than when I first wrote this post.  I don't exactly want to use the "CTA ID" Identifier Match, as I want to use a custom Status depending on the Type of CTA I'm after.







  • In Setup Rule, it is pulling the correct filtered information.

  • However in Setup Action, it seems to be ignoring everything from Setup Rule and pull everything that meets the standards.  It also appears that is it disregarding any additional Criteria you may add to the action when trying to correct the fact - it's disregarding the Setup Action information.
So it's not a duplicate that it's pulling, it's the Active CTA that I've filtered out in Setup Rule, and have attempted in various ways to filter out in Setup Action.  But it just doesn't seem to be accepting the additional Criteria.

Reply