Expand my Community achievements bar.

Join us LIVE in San Francisco on November 14th for Experience Makers The Skill Exchange. Don't miss out on this free learning event!

While editing a Request Custom Form I am receiving this error Message ' Invalid Parameter: Conversion to type NMBR value 'SMS Reporting Example text'? This message is not allowing me to save my changes. What does this mean and how to resolve it?

Avatar

Level 2

While editing a Request Custom Form I am receiving this error Message ' Invalid Parameter: Conversion to type NMBR value 'SMS Reporting Example text'? This message is not allowing me to save my changes. What does this mean and how to resolve it? attached screenshot of the error message

2 Replies

Avatar

Community Advisor

Hi @anasooya - I normally get that type of error message when I add a new field and then try to create a calculated field based off of the new field I just added. The workaround I've found is that you need to create the new field, save, and then come back and do the calculated field.


Hope that helps!

Avatar

Level 9

The phrase "conversion type to NMBR" suggests to me that the calculated field you're trying to populate is set as a numeric field, but whatever the source fields you're referencing are not numeric also. Workfront is smart enough to stop you from trying to calculate "2 + banana = ..." and will generate a mismatch error like that one. You'll see something similar if you have an existing field typed as 'text' and try to resave it as 'numeric' after data has already been entered. 

 

To resolve, you can go back to the source fields you're trying to use in the calculation and re-type them as purely numeric. That can be a painful process if you have a large amount of existing data in the fields though, as all non-numeric values will need to be updated. Once every existing field value is actually a number, WF will allow you to update the field(s) to numeric.

 

I've also occasionally wondered if the conversion to numeric could be handled with expressions in the field calculation, but never had the time to test and see if that was a valid workaround or not.