You are viewing limited content. For full access, please sign in.

Question

Question

Separate collection information for next form/subprocess for each set

asked on June 22, 2023

Is there a way to separate information in a collection so I can assign each set of info to individual users within Forms? For example, set A needs to be assigned to Jane and when she goes into her form, she only see's the first row of collected info; Set B is assigned to Bob and he should only see row two. 

I have used workflow in the past to do this, but this collection has an upload field and we do not want to use an i-frame and force another login for repository access. It's just annoying. I know upload fields are not well supported going from Forms to WF and back again (something people have been asking for many years). I am trying to incorporate it into the original procedure as a sub-process within Forms because the infomation is already there. I'm just not sure how to pull it.

I have seen some posts that are way beyond my capability that may have helped, but I need a simpler solutions if possible.

I'd appreciate any help I can get.

 

 

 

 

0 0

Replies

replied on June 23, 2023

Others may be able to offer more elegant solutions, but my first question is: why do your fields need to be in a collection? If the max number of rows is low enough, you may want to consider just repeating the fields on your form.

I would then use Field Rules to show/hide based on the current user.

To do this, you can add a hidden field on your form that defaults to the account name for the current user. You can then set your Field Rule to state "show these fields when hidden field is <Jane's username>," and "show these other fields when hidden field is <Bob's username>."

I hope that helps!

hidden_field.png
hidden_field.png (27.19 KB)
0 0
replied on June 23, 2023

It was easier to put in a collection because it is repetative and an unknown set of data. I could build it out as you suggested. I have noticed the information sets never go over ten so that may be a feasible way to manage it.

Thanks for the input.smiley

0 0
You are not allowed to follow up in this post.

Sign in to reply to this post.