How to sort complex list

Are you querying this from a database via a QueryEntity rule? If so, you can easily sort on a particular field via your a!pagingInfo() definition.

If it's data you have inherent or manually-created in an interface or a rule, then it takes a bit more work.  Appian has no direct way to do this but a fairly easy indirect workaround, again involving pagingInfo.

a!localVariables(
  local!dictionary: {
    {
      clientId: 1,
      clientName: "z client 1"
    },
    {
      clientId: 32,
      clientName: "a client name"
    },
    {
      clientId: 58,
      clientName: "middle client"
    }
  },
  
  todatasubset(
    local!dictionary,
    a!pagingInfo(
      startIndex: 1,
      batchSize: -1,
      sort: a!sortInfo(
        field: "clientName",
        ascending: true()
      )
    )
  ).data
)

Are you querying this from a database via a QueryEntity rule? If so, you can easily sort on a particular field via your a!pagingInfo() definition.

If it's data you have inherent or manually-created in an interface or a rule, then it takes a bit more work.  Appian has no direct way to do this but a fairly easy indirect workaround, again involving pagingInfo.

a!localVariables(
  local!dictionary: {
    {
      clientId: 1,
      clientName: "z client 1"
    },
    {
      clientId: 32,
      clientName: "a client name"
    },
    {
      clientId: 58,
      clientName: "middle client"
    }
  },
  
  todatasubset(
    local!dictionary,
    a!pagingInfo(
      startIndex: 1,
      batchSize: -1,
      sort: a!sortInfo(
        field: "clientName",
        ascending: true()
      )
    )
  ).data
)

Hi Mike, I have tried this option but no luck, it shows error. 

Expression evaluation error at function 'todatasubset' [line 42]: Cannot sort type {www.appian.com/.../2009}Dictionary by field clientName because it is a complex type {www.appian.com/.../2009}Variant. Sort by fields of primitive types only.

Can you enclose your "CXM_getClientName()" rule call on Line 39 within "toString()"?  Depending on the output of that rule it could be evaluating to a somewhat weird data type.

Perfect! that worked. 

Thank you!

great, thanks for confirming