I have made a webhook scenario in Make and I am successfully sending the data I want to it, but what I would like to do is Map the App and Table so I can reuse the scenario for multiple apps, but when I pass those values through secrets they do not work. If uncheck the Map option and specify them directly it isn’t an issue.
Is this not actually possible, or is there some specific formatting that it needs?
The app and table id’s are from the View API on the User’s table of the app.
It should be possible. Why is there an [object Object] error under your table ID?
I am not positive, that just shows up when I attempt to map the App and/or Table.
I think what is going on is that without a “default” value for the App and Table ids, the glide module doesn’t know what fields to look for to provide options for setting values.
This is using an app and table from the list:
As I showed above, when I use dynamic App and Tables, then I don’t get any fields, just the Row ID, however, in my run history it says it was successful.
However, the details appear to have the correct row based on the output rowID, just no value was set.
I guess an alternative would be to just do it all through a direct api call and not the Glide module.
I just went ahead and used an HTTP request module to do the work. Really wished I could use the v2 API, but that only works on Big Tables, which can’t be used as the Users table, so v1 it is.
Doing this now allows me to automate the setting of the “Role” column which isn’t directly possible within Glide but I really want to use for Row Owner purposes.
Probably the most annoying part of this is that the columns can’t be reference with plain text “names” but rather unique column values.
Yes it is. Use a server side workflow. Either a webhook or manual trigger.
Although the workflow “is possible” it will NOT set the value of the column because I have that column set to be the Role column and the workflow isn’t allowed to set it.
You could try applying the filter/condition directly within the loop itself.
Works for me. Here is an example (I just tested to make sure nothing has changed):
In fact, I made a video to demonstrate how to do this when workflows were still in private beta:
I guess the difference here is that you’re using the Webhook version and I tried to go with the Manual trigger.
I may look at this and see, but I would also have to recreate this in every app where the Make version I can just reuse.
Thanks for the information @Darren_Murphy, I really appreciate it!
Could be, although I’m surprised that it doesn’t work with the Manual trigger, because it does run server-side.
Yes, that’s a good point. What you could do though if you wanted to keep everything in Glide as much as possible is create a separate App just for this purpose. So any App could call it via a webhook, and then it would update the calling App via the API. Essentially it would just replace what Make is doing now.
Based on another post, can you not call a webhook now without passing Authorization header?
So, I would need to use Call API vs Trigger Webhook to use this internally?
Yes, the App that is passing the data to the Glide API would definitely need to use Call API. But the initiating App could use either.
Thanks again @Darren_Murphy!
Here is the version that I have working within Glide to take Make out of the equation.
Here is the Call API node that will trigger the webhook.
Here is the Webhook
Nice one 
Ah, I see. You’re using an Auth token with your webhook. I normally don’t bother with that, unless the webook is coming from an untrusted source.
