Updating Line Items in NetSuite Import with Error: more_than_one_match_found

Matthew Morrill

• August 27, 2023 21:03
• Edited

I've created a CSV data loader to NS Bills import, with the hopes to mass update expense accounts, departments, etc.for only the specified line items (update only, no new bill/bill line creation). For example, a Bill with Internal ID 406927 has 8 lines in it. I'd like to update the expense account and/or departments for only the line with line ID ‘7’. 

In the import settings, "Record Type" is set to Bills and the "How can we find existing records" is simply set as the transaction Internal ID. I know that the Line ID itself is also a unique key field for this import, but that's not an option in the "How can we find existing records" field list (I'm assuming this is because line items are child records, and this filter is only meant to isolate the parent record), so in the mapping I have linked the the Line ID of the uploaded csv to the items : Line ID child record field and checked the "Use as a key field to find existing lines" box in the field mapping configuration.

My goal is to achieve a single line lookup, matching on the transaction's Internal ID and the Line's Line ID, because the combination of these 2 fields is truly unique for all lines on any transaction, but I get the "more_than_one_match_found" error when I run this flow.

Full Error Message: A mapping error occurred. More than one match for "["internalidnumber","is","406927"]" for the record type "vendorbill".

Does anyone know what I've skipped in order for this flow to work properly? I've included relevant snippets below. 

 

Edited to add full error message.

0

• 

  Tyler Lamparter Principal Product Manager

  • August 28, 2023 13:19

  

  

  

  

  

  Matthew Morrill it looks like you need to make a slight modification to the header "how to find existing records". For the "internalidnumber" field, it should be "equals" and not "is". Alternatively, you can use "internalid" field with "is" or "anyof".

  0
• 

  Matthew Morrill

  • August 28, 2023 16:37

  Thank you! That got me through that error, and it seems the next error I'm seeing (peeling back the onion layers of errors) is a similar one, so I'll make sure I'm using the right operators in the matching expressions.

  0

Please sign in to leave a comment.