Hey gents, having an issue with find email waterfall not running again...

Michael H.

Hey gents, having an issue with find email waterfall not running again. This has been a recurring issue.

32 comments

Clay Team
APP
·
·
Hey hey! Can you drop the URL for your table here? (if applicable) 🫶 Don't worry, only admins will be able to open your table 😉
Michael H.
·
·
https://app.clay.com/workspaces/23827/tables/t_kP4sOkLf38KL/views/gv_DYAhl5q0LQyy
Michael H.
·
·
it's supposed to validate between "find email" steps, yet it ran without running any email validations steps - and no email address shows in the "validated work email" column
Michael H.
·
·
waterfalls have been very hit-or-miss lately
Michael H.
·
·
tagging Aaron R. for transparency
Kareem Amin
·
·
We’ll prioritize taking a look at this and get back to you by tomorrow. Roger T.
Aaron R.
·
·
Thank you Kareem Amin! We have been dealing with this issue for quite some time now.
Clay Team
APP
·
·
Hey, appreciate this! As Kareem mentioned, the team is looking into some improvements to better communicate what is going on in each step.To add a bit more context on this specific situation, Michael H. Aaron R., this happens when the validation tool (debounce in this example) determines the email is invalid and the next provider is trying to find a new one, but if it finds the same one it won't try to validate it again and may result in no final output. Since we automatically hide the validation columns to help keep the table clean, it may be why it's not evident at first glance that that's the behavior or logic it's following. Let me know if you still have any questions though!
Aaron R.
·
·
Got it Arturo O.. We unhid all the columns so that we can see where the waterfall is breaking. Do you think there is a way to get around this issue rather than waiting for the fix? It's crucial that this table is complete this morning.
Michael H.
·
·
^ Arturo O. this campaign is supposed to go live today, so it's urgent that we get a workaround going by end of day
Roger T.
·
·
Checking now
Michael H.
·
·
thanks so much Roger T.
Roger T.
·
·
No problem, can you give me an example of a row where the output doesn't match your expectations?
Michael H.
·
·
any of these where the validation step never ran
Michael H.
·
·
just says run condition not met
Michael H.
·
·
and the final email never merged to the final email column
Roger T.
·
·
okay, thank you for clarifying this
Roger T.
·
·
I'm taking a look at the first line "tony.soto@therealreal.com" and everything is working as intended, as Arturo mentioned above: this happens when the validation tool (debounce in this example) determines the email is invalid and the next provider is trying to find a new one, but if it finds the same one it won't try to validate it again and may result in no final output.
Roger T.
·
·
basically the validation tool ran once on this email address, and the other email providers found the same email address, so there's no need for the validation tool to run again (on that same email address)
Aaron R.
·
·
so to clarify, the waterfall is working 100% properly? Roger T.
Roger T.
·
·
yes, I'm not seeing any issue in the example above. I can take a look at other rows as well if you'd like me to confirm
Roger T.
·
·
are there any rows where you're not seeing the desired output?
Michael H.
·
·
From my end it looks like the validation tool never ran for that email
Michael H.
·
·
"run conditions not met"
Roger T.
·
·
Let me show you the cell where it did run
Michael H.
·
·
okay, thanks
Roger T.
·
·
You'll see in the screenshot below, that the very first cell found an email for Tony Soto (tony.soto@therealreal.com), and the second cell performed the validation on the email address (email was not valid). The other email providers ran (cell 3,5,7,9) but since the email address that was found was the same (tony.soto@therealreal.com), the validation cells did not need to run (cell 4,6,8,10)
Roger T.
·
·
one of the "run condition" is that the email address has never been checked before - which in this case, is not true for cells 4,6,,8,10, since it was already checked in cell 2. this is why you're seeing the message "run condition not met"
Roger T.
·
·
the UX is not great and we're not doing a good job at explaining this, I'll discuss this with the team on how we can improve this. but the output is correct
Aaron R.
·
·
That was a great explanation Roger T.!
Michael H.
·
·
Ok, I see now
Roger T.
·
·
np, thank you