Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update get-best-of-standard-dataflows - Known Limitations Wording Adjustment #523

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bdiggydogness
Copy link

In the known limitations, I've adjusted the detail around the 'multiple-select' data load.

Through testing multiple scenarios, I have found that:

  • if you try and migrate BOTH a multi-select choice column AND a single-select choice column, the dataflow will fail (and the error makes you think it's because of the multi select field).

  • If you migrate just one TYPE of choice field, dataflow runs perfectly.

I think the wording needs to be clearer to outline this issue with Dataflows.

Image showing the error message received when two different choice types are selected:
RefreshHistory_FailurewithTwoChoiceTypes

Image showing the refresh history when only Multi-select choice fields are published:
RefreshHistory_SuccessWithOnlyMulti-Select

In the known limitations, I've adjusted the detail around the 'multiple-select' data load.

Through testing multiple scenarios, I have found that:

- if you try and migrate BOTH a multi-select choice column AND a single-select choice column, the dataflow will fail (and the error makes you think it's because of the multi select field).

- If you migrate just one TYPE of choice field, dataflow runs perfectly.

I think the wording needs to be clearer to outline this issue with Dataflows.
@prmerger-automator prmerger-automator bot added the do-not-merge Don't merge this yet label Mar 21, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@bdiggydogness : Thanks for your contribution! The author(s) have been notified to review your proposed change.

Copy link
Contributor

Learn Build status updates of commit 01571b4:

✅ Validation status: passed

File Status Preview URL Details
powerquery-docs/dataflows/get-best-of-standard-dataflows.md ✅Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

For any questions, please:

@Court72
Copy link
Contributor

Court72 commented Mar 21, 2024

@DougKlopfenstein

Can you review the proposed changes?

When the changes are ready for publication, add a #sign-off comment to signal that the PR is ready for the review team to merge.

#label:"aq-pr-triaged"
@MicrosoftDocs/public-repo-pr-review-team

@JasonWHowell
Copy link
Collaborator

#assign:ptyx507x
#assign:jonburchel

@DougKlopfenstein DougKlopfenstein requested review from Luitwieler and removed request for bensack April 25, 2024 21:21
@JasonWHowell JasonWHowell assigned Luitwieler and unassigned bensack May 28, 2024
@JasonWHowell JasonWHowell added the needs-engineering-review Discussing with Microsoft's engineering team. label May 28, 2024
@Luitwieler
Copy link
Contributor

@msftyehong I believed we already similar feedback to this page already? I think it is clear that the change proposed makes sense, however, is this the expected behavior?

@msftyehong
Copy link
Contributor

@bdiggydogness mind sharing a solution with reproduction of the issue - I'm not able to reproduce, probably miss something (and for completeness, please include the other scenario that does refresh).

@DougKlopfenstein DougKlopfenstein added the question Further information is requested label Jun 6, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
aq-pr-triaged Change sent to author do-not-merge Don't merge this yet needs-engineering-review Discussing with Microsoft's engineering team. powerquery/svc qualifies-for-auto-merge question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants