Hi,
We have web forms with plenty of fields and we are integrating it in to tape to capture the data using email to app. see image below for sample email content
thank you very much for the bug report!
Can you please explain the issue in more detail? I think your screenshots show two different data sets, so it is not possible to see what was not mapped correctly.
As a note, not all field types are currently supported when parsing email to app. Currently supported are: Single line text, Multiple line text, Number and Single select.
I see a location, email and address field in your app. You could convert these with an automation or make a feature request. This could be a low-hanging feature for us.
Podio has a function that lets you email to app. It only lets you map fields based on the data points within the email, similar to Tape. However, there’s also an under the hood feature that’s looking for data within the body of the email and if they are formatted as “FIELD_NAME”: “VALUE”, then Podio will try to fill the field with that exact name with that value.
Hi @Leo, thanks for the reply, @andrew.cranston is correct data within the body of the email will automatically parse this and put it in fields value, I tried to change the field in tape app that I created to all text but still its not getting the data,
thank you very much for the quick feedback.
We have also built the parsing of the values from the email body in Tape and use it ourselves for our email processes, but the parsing algorithm seems to differ from Podio which causes the problems here.
We are investigating the causes and will find a solution. I will report back here as soon as I have a first update.
@comfreakph thanks for your report. We improved the automatic field value matching of the email body and adjusted it to be more compliant with the version that you know from an older system.
For the following field types the matching should work out of the box:
Single and multi line text fields
Single and multi category fields
Status fields
Date fields
Number fields
@comfreakph kindly let us know whether the use case works properly now. If you need the matching to work with more field types, kindly create a feature request for that.