Unanswered questions

Hi,I created and use a credential app in my workflows. The user has to provide the credentials (on-promise). When I connect to the oauth server, it works up to the provider unique identifier. It calls my endpoint, I return a JSON as described. But after that, I can not use the Credential feature. I have to start from the beginning. What is missing to complete the process?Thanks and best regards, Marcus

Hi,I’m using the new Credentials app feature (under Build → Features → Credentials, not the legacy credentials field) to authenticate with a third‑party service in monday workflows. Behavior I’m seeing: User installs the app and connects an account via the Credentials feature. User then uninstalls the app. Later, the same user reinstalls the app. When they go to connect again, they still see the old credentials available to select, which makes it look like we didn’t delete anything on uninstall. From the docs, I understand that: Credentials are securely stored and scoped to the app, and can be reused across workflow features. Privacy & security requirements say that when an app is de‑authorized/uninstalled, app data should be deleted within 10 days unless there is explicit consent to retain it. However, I couldn’t find any documentation that explains: Whether credentials created via the Credentials app feature are supposed to persist across uninstall/reinstall. Whether the

I have an automation block (well, actually several of course). It can be triggered fromA workflow An automation Within Sidekick AII want to track usage so that I can assess how my app is being used.How can I tell where the block was triggered from? How can I tell which of the above use cases is the most popular?  Can the payload in the block be used to differentiate where it was triggered from? If not, why not? Make it so pleeeeease.

Hi everyone,I'm encountering a persistent quota issue while trying to deploy a new server-side app to monday code.The Issue: When running mapps code:push -i <APP_ID>, the build succeeds but the deployment fails with: ✖ You've reached the maximum allowed number of apps connected to monday-code.Context: I am working on an Organization account. I previously had few private test apps. Some were using Client-side hosting, and I was attempting to set up this new one on Server-side (monday code). I am aware of the 5-app limit for private apps on monday code. Steps Taken to Resolve: App Cleanup: I have already deleted the previous private test apps that were using the hosting slots. Disconnecting: I searched for a manual "Disconnect" option in the Developer Center but found only the "Delete" option for these apps. Verification: Despite having fewer than 5 active apps in my Developer Center, the CLI still reports that the maximum number has been reached. Question: Does deleting an

 In the example above, the contact, Sam Jones <sam@apple.com> has emailed someone. The avatar and heading are for Sam.If I was to add an activity on the contact’s behalf, I’d want to add the contact’s avatar & name rather than my own (which is what would happen by default).Is there a way to add that the Contact as the person who performed the activity rather than the person who added it using the API?So far, this seems to be a limitation of the create_timeline_item mutation. Dev Sidekick says:Looking at the available arguments for create_timeline_item, there is no parameter to specify a different user as the activity performer. The mutation's arguments are:item_id, custom_activity_id, title, timestamp (required) content, summary, time_range, url, phone, location (optional)[create_timeline_item]None of these allow you to attribute the activity to a specific contact or user other than the API caller. The knowledge sources do not mention any way to override the author/performer

I’m trying to create a dynamic field mapping for my automations/workflows using object fields.While I’m able to list the fields correctly, all of them are flagged as required, which doesn’t match my expectations. In the payload, the fields are marked as nullable (as described in the documentation):body = { name: { title: 'User name', type: 'primitive', primitiveType: 'string', isNullable: true, isArray: true, }, email: { title: 'Email', type: 'primitive', primitiveType: 'string', isNullable: true, isArray: false, },}; Is the documenation outdated, the code wrong or is there a bug?

So when the legacy automation builder is turned off, what happens to any automations in templates that were created using it? I ask because technically you can’t create new automations on the old infra - but maybe templates will continue to work.

Hello, I would like to understand the output fields that are available for all automation triggers. Including pre-defined Monday triggers.  There does not appear to be a tool in the UI, not in the automation runtime view, in the sentence creation or in the app development UI. Is there an API I can call that will provide me the outputs for a trigger.  Say, for example: “When a status-column changes to X” Do I get the boardId, itemId, status-column and status-column-values? Where is this defined? How do examine the output field schema? CheersJem 

 We’ve just launched a powerful upgrade to SMS to Board, introducing a fully redesigned SMS & Numbers Dashboard and advanced number management capabilities.Here’s what’s new:📞 Smarter Phone Number Search & ReservationYou now have complete control when reserving numbers. No more random assignment — you choose the number.: 🌍 Select country before searching 📱 Choose number type (mobile, etc.) 🔎 Search by area code or specific number pattern 🎯 Find numbers containing specific digits 📋 Browse available numbers before renting ✅ Select the exact number that fits your business needs  🔗 Advanced Board Linking & Field MappingWe’ve added deeper integration controls: Link each phone number to a specific workspace Choose the exact board that will receive messages Map SMS data to custom board columns: Sender number Message text Date column Assign a custom alias/name to each phone number (e.g., “Sales Line”, “Support UK”, “Marketing Campaign”) This giv

Hi everyone,We’ve compiled the most common migration-related questions you’ve raised into a new FAQ document.Feel free to take a look and let us know if anything is missing or if there’s a question we should add.https://developer.monday.com/apps/docs/automation-features-migration-faqs

Hello!We’ve recently migrated our old automation blocks from the legacy “Integration for sentence builder” feature to the new “Automation Block” feature. Using those automation blocks, we’ve also created “Automation templates”.The new application version is published & live into 40+ different monday.com accounts (our direct customers we are consulting with; the application is published but unlisted/private). ✅ When we test everything in our own monday.com account, everything works fine.❌ When we test in our clients’ monday.com accounts, the new automation UI does NOT work. I’ve racked my brain around all available settings and I am beginning to think that this is a bug and not a configuration issue. When creating a new automation and selecting one of our new templates, the automation window does not “expand” to the right automation. First video displays the intended behaviour. It was recorded in our own monday.com account:  The second video displays the buggy behaviour. It was reco

Hi,due to migration of my app to workflows I try to use the credential feature to initiate OAuth to a Mattermost server. Unfortunately, Mattermost only accepts a length of 1024 characters for the state field. The state that the credential feature sends is about 1152 character long and so the request is rejected. Is there a chance to set a limit of the state field in the feature?Thanks and best regards, Marcus

For workflow actions triggered on boardId = 18397494666 & itemId = 11214110651, I'm seeing the itemId is wrongly giving an input of the boardId.Here’s the setup screen (with the values of body.payload.inputFields on the right):  Here’s the setup for the Item: Why might this be?const { inputFields } = body.payload;console.log(inputFields);Gives:{ "boardId": "18397494666", "itemId": "18397494666", ...} ---  As this looks most likely to be a bug on monday’s end, here’s some metadata for one such automation run:{ "actionUuid": "4e1f182bca59b6ca14776aa06df008f9", "triggerUuid": "31e4712253b824058d35d985ebf69429", "region": "use1", "recipeId": 3975525, "integrationId": 529923319} 

Hi everyone,I’m working on an integration where, when a user triggers an API action, my app fetches data from a third-party service and updates multiple columns on a Monday board.The main challenge I’m facing is how to handle column IDs in a clean and scalable way.Currently: I usually rely on column fields in the recipe to get the columnId, which works fine. However, when I need to update many columns (for example 5–10 columns), adding that many column fields makes the recipe sentence very long and not clean. I tried using item values, but they only return the columnId without any clear reference to which column it belongs to. If I use dynamic mapping, I lose access to the actual columnId, which my integration logic still needs. So my question is:Is there any way in Monday to pass multiple columns at once — including both the columnId and some kind of alias / logical name — so that the integration app can handle column updates more easily?I’m looking for a pattern or best practic

I have a number of sentence builder action blocks that do not migrate due to unsupported fields. I can create something equivalent or better with the Automation Block feature. However I am seeing speculation or assumptions that if we don’t use the migration wizard on our side that somehow end users when the eventual migration process for them come out won’t be able to migrate recipes directly.I don’t want to create inferior versions based on the limits of the old sentence builder if I don’t have to. I’d rather create one version that replaces a half dozen variations previously needed. But if we  need a one-to-one relationship, that won’t work and I will be forced to create automations that look like duplicates and will be confusing.