I’m running code that sync a database of information to a monday board.
I’m making use of both items (as parents) and subitem (as childern) boards.
My code runs on schedule each time it compare the database and the monday board for items that should be deleted, items that are out of date and items which are missing.
The database always dictating the information on the monday board.
When a parent item with subitems has been deleted the API still see the subitems.
Also if my code which might have a slight delay still have in memory an item id of a parent, it is still able to add the child to the parent, even thought the parent is now in trash.
In both cases the API doesn’t see the subitem as deleted. (the parent has been delete)
Is there a way to tell the API not to create subitems on parent which have been created?
If not, Is there a way to determine that a item has been deleted, I can then check the items I get back from the API can confirm their parents are still in the board.
I manage to do a comparison between the item and subitem board on the ids of the parent item. When a subitem’s parent id is not on the parent board I delete it.
Next time when my code run it doesn’t see the subitem and then add them to the correct parent.
It’s more of a hack really. I would expect that if a parent doesn’t exist on the Monday board that the subitems should also not exist. Yet when I ask the sub item board for all the subitems I’m getting items of which the parents has been deleted.
The code now needs to check that each subitem’s parent is indeed a parent from the the api call I made to the parent board.
When I find the deleted parent in the trash and restore it the subitems are also restored. But I’m not seeing the trashed parent when calling the parent item board.
So to me both the subitems and the items should be in trash and not visible to the api.
Would you be able to please fill this form adding as much information as possible to it (such as account ID, board IDs, item IDs, subitems IDs, etc.) so that our team can take a look into it?