Duplicate Record Type Names Can Be Created - Is This Intended Behavior?

Question

Hi Appians,
I noticed that I am able to create multiple record types with the exact same name. I tested this with both the same data stores with same/different tables from database, and the record types were created successfully without any validation error.
This raised a few questions:

Is it expected and valid behavior for multiple record types to share the same name?

If duplicate names are allowed, what is the intended use case for this design?

When configuring integrations, mappings, or other features that reference a record type, how can users reliably identify which record type is being used if multiple record types have the same name?

Is there an internal unique identifier that the platform uses behind the scenes, and should users rely on that instead of the display name? (Other than UUID)

I would appreciate any clarification on the expected behavior and recommended best practices.
Thank you.

shubhama926776 · Accepted Answer

Same-named record types are allowed, but you shouldn't design that way.
Objects are identified by UUID, not name, so duplicates are technically valid. It useful for versioning, cross-app namespaces, or imported objects. Since only the name shows, duplicates are hard to distinguish visually; clicking the reference confirms the bound object. UUID is the only unique identifier, so the safeguard is a naming convention with prefixes.

Sign up

Login with SSO

Login to the community

Login with SSO