Skip to Main Content
Nintex Ideas

đź‘‹ Use this site to provide feedback and ideas for all Nintex Products. See our post on Nintex Community "Welcome to Nintex Ideas" for more details on Nintex Ideas, how an idea is handled by our product teams and more!

If you have questions about Nintex Ideas, please contact

If you require support, please visit Nintex Customer Central

If you have a sales inquiry, please contact

Status Not Planned
Categories Form Designer
Created by Guest
Created on Mar 3, 2022

How to pre-populate Repeating Rows from SharePoint Lists Items

I managed to capture information from Nintex Workflow Cloud form and save it in SharePoint List. Now, I want to design a form for Updating or Editing a record based from the SP List. How can I auto populate repeating section based on Sharepoint List item values for my Update/Edit form?
  • Attach files
  • Guest
    Sep 7, 2022
    you can do this by creating your M365 form with a repeating section. Save the repeating section XML to a multiline SharePoint column. Create one form so you can get the XML.

    In your workflow you can use a string to rebuild the XML and just replace the static data with the workflow data. You will need to use a look and build the ITEM NODES of the XML. Once you build the XML you save it back to your SharePoint list column that is bound to the repeating section control in your form.

    I just did this for a client and it works great.
  • alan_fire
    Sep 7, 2022
    I've got a few rather large forms that need to go through a chain of command. Repeating sections would be ideal, but I can't use them because there's no way of pre-populating the fields (you can use default value, but each row would have the same value).

    If we could pass a form on with all that workflow's previously answered values onto another step, that would really help. Currently I'm using loops for the levels of authentication, so simply being able to pre-populate with values with an index would help.

    As a result of not being able to do this, I've got a really labour intensive workaround, using static fields.