Let’s start from basic principles. Make scenarios always start with a trigger or a scheduled module. They are like functions really and always have one and only one starting point.
So can you explain why you need multiple triggers in one scenario?
Thanks, @alex.newpath for your explanation and concepts.
It helps me to get correct concepts when I design solutions.
Sometimes, info comes from different sources (Mailchimp Landing, WordPress, Facebook Leads Forms) and it is convenient or necessary to use the same scenario to keep incremental data (incremental function, for example).
I wanted to discard completely if other options already exist for these types of cases.
So what you can do is create a scenario that collects the source-unique data and then at the end pass off this data via webhook (HTTP) to ANOTHER scenario where the first module is an incoming webhook.
You’ll need to coerce the incoming data for the webhook to be consistent (which may be a chore in and of itself) but you can think of this webhook-led scenario as the one thing that is consistent between all the “feeder” scenarios. The webhook-led scenario will need to look at the webhook data and do something tha has shared functionality that all the “feeder” scenarios need.
This technique of using webhook-led scenarios is how you can make a scenario into a function with various inputs (from “feeder” scenarios) and a consistent set of outputs and changes to other systems.
Why does Make even allow you to add multiple triggers into a single scenario?
Like, if there can be only ONE starting trigger. And that is the only trigger that can function.
Then why are we even allowed to drag another trigger into the screen? I’m very confused by the UX of it, there seems like some use-case I’m not familiar with.