Loop through linked data in delivery/personalization...

[Bowenaus]

Hello,

We have table which links to the recipients table with a 1 to many relationship (1 recipient may have many records in the 2nd table). We are trying to list data from all linked records in the 2nd table for each recipient. For example, in an email to John Doe we would like a bulleted list of ID1, ID2, ID3, etc. where ID1, ID2, ID3 are the linked records from the 2nd table.

We are wondering:

a) if personalization blocks are capable of handling queries & making API calls or if this is only possible within activities in the workflow via Javascript.

b) If there are any other ideas or solutions anybody has come across which can accomplish this scenario.

Here is the code we have tried writing into a personalization block. We see something similar being used from this site, which led us to attempting to use the personalization block approach: https://blog.floriancourgey.com/2018/08/use-querydef-the-database-toolkit-in-adobe-campaign 

var query = NLWS.xtkQueryDef.create(
{queryDef: {schema: "cus:Consumer_Ids", operation: "select",
select: {
node: [{expr: "@company"}, {expr: "@Id"}]
},
where: {
condition: [{expr: "@contactId= '" + recipient.contactId +"'"}]
}
}})

var res = query.ExecuteQuery()

 When attempting to loop through a personalization block, we are receiving this error.: "Error while compiling script. NLWS is not defined." Any insights or ideas are greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Austin Bowen

[DavidKangni · Accepted solution]

Hi Austin,

See and example of code below. I used broadLogRcp as it has a 1-N relationship with recipient schema. So for every recipient I want to show all the emails sent

In your case, replace broadLog by the name of your 2nd table.

<TABLE>
    <TBODY>
        <TR>
            <TD>Campaign name</TD>
            <TD>Delivery Name</TD>
            <TD>Event Date</TD>
        </TR>
        <%
                for(var i = 0 ; i<recipient.broadLog.length; i++)
                {
                    document.write("<tr>");
                    document.write("<td>" + recipient.broadLog[i].delivery.operation.label + "</td>");
                    document.write("<td>" + recipient.broadLog[i].delivery.label + "</td>");
                    document.write("<td>" + recipient.broadLog[i].eventDate + "</td>");
                    document.write("</tr>");
                }
            %>
        </TR>
    </TBODY>
</TABLE>

Here is the result

Thanks,

David

[Bowenaus]

Thanks David. Just to confirm, you're able to just use this kind of dot notation for any tables linked to the recipient table without needing a query? We will give it a shot today to see if it will be possible with our scenario where we have a foreign key on the recipient record which links to a foreign key on the 2nd custom table. Thank you for your suggestion!

[Bowenaus]

We were able to implement this solution & it worked great. We have other use cases where this would be really helpful as well, just weren't familiar that you could loop through values using that dot notation approach. Thanks a lot!

[Sukrity_Wadhwa]

Hi @Bowenaus,

Were you able to resolve this query with the given solution or do you need more help? Do let us know.

Thanks!

[Bowenaus]

--

[Bowenaus]

Hi @Sukrity_Wadhwa, Thank you for checking. I am able to get David's code below to work fine. However, when I use the custom table which "recipient" links to, I keep getting an error. I've tried using different variations of the table name (it actually gets generated as recipient.Consumers_contact.fieldName when I choose a field from the dropdown list of available fields). Similar error each time: "Error while evaluating document JST-310000 Error while compiling script 'content htmlContent' line 5: recipient.Consumers is undefined. SCR-160012 Javascript: error while evaluating script 'content htmlContent'."

[Bowenaus]

We were able to resolve the issue by updating the link element on our custom schema to have a revLink attribute (we used the Broadlog schema as a reference and made sure our link was structured similarly since that table was working).

[Sukrity_Wadhwa]

Great! Thanks for letting us know.