I cross-doc’ed a table from Doc A to Doc B and then used it extensively in Doc B (it’s referenced by 12 other tables, countless controls and formulas)
For many reasons, I now regret that cross doc and wish to “break the link” to make the table local to Doc B, so that I can add rows to it from there.
Is there any way to achieve this without having to rework the entirety of Doc B ?
Convert — no.
One half-measure that you can do is:
Make your local table in doc B (i.e. copy the whole table from doc A to doc B)
Clean up your table in doc A, e.g. just delete all the columns from it. Just make sure it has enough rows to host the entirety of your table. Add some extra for the rows you’ll be adding in the future. If you want to be fancy, set up an automation / a webhook to keep adding rows as your table in the doc B grows.
In your doc B, in the sync table, replace all column formulas to read respective properties from your local table, not the thisRow.Row object. You have to make sure that each row in the sync table is strongly linked to a row in your local table. You could just use e.g. MyTable.Nth(thisTable.Find(thisRow)) but if you reorder rows in your local table that would mess up the mapping, so I’d choose something stronger. You will be, of course, limited to 10000 rows because a sync table can’t have more.
Hope this makes sense. If not I’ll record you a video.
Reworking the doc B would, of course, work the best. But as long as your table isn’t that large and doesn’t have that many columns, this could be an okay remedy.
That is a very clever way of going about it.
Unfortunately for me:
It looks like this is gonna a very painful reworking of the doc then 
. Funny how what seemed like a really good design decision a couple of years ago can come back to bite.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.