Is the product polished? We need your inputs

Sorry @Bram, I was tired when I wrote that.

I meant revert to an auto-saved flow instance, not just a published instance.

For example, if you don’t ever publish a WIP flow but have been working on it for several days or even weeks, there’s no way to go back if you make a mistake.

This would also extend to undo/redo functionality which @Dennis mentioned.


No problem! I understand what you mean. Makes sense

Also not sure if it is mentioned but saving HTTP pieces would be amazing, I’ve set up quiet a lot of HTTP Pieces but have to set these up again for every flow. Saving these and reusing them would be amazing and saves a lot of time.

Besides that Pabbly has set-up something a while back where it is easier for users to create these HTTP pieces please see this video,

Kr Bram


Yes, 100%! Same for the Code pieces, please!


Another example of unpolished/undocumented/unintuitive behavior: Google Drive "Read file" bug? - #3 by abuaboud

1 Like

Thanks for asking!!!

I’d suggest a few things:

  • Undo and redo button at the top of the screen.
  • More info on errors and input fields. For instance, in the Drive piece, in Folder ID there is no information on what folder id is or where to get it (I already got it, but sometimes it is frustrating not having any help on how to get it)
  • A view of favorite pieces.
  • A view of favorite flows.
  • A changelog on pieces to see what changed or new improvements.



A lot of pain is caused by the lack or poor documentation of feature blocks and the lack of implementation examples. I know that you have this functionality that I need, but I can’t start using it, because all that you have written about it is that it exists…

Example - 🔒 Authentication for Webhook - #3 by Konrod

And yes, I write about this because I like what you do and how. If I didn’t believe in the product and your team, I would simply leave.

1 Like

I can see the effort and the community, but in my opinion the product is far from polished.

The reason being is the lack of Pieces as well as the lack of triggers/actions for the ones existing. In many cases, it’s members of the community, and not from ActivePieces, that create them altruistically.

I knew Activepieces was a young project when I purchased it, but I was not expecting it to develop at this slow pace. However, I still have faith :muscle:

1 Like

Despite being a paid user, am unable to use AP. It breaks, especially chat gpt. Most of the templates (1500 word blog, for example) does not work

1 Like

What do you mean by “it breaks” and “does not work”? Can you help us understand your perspective?

Yes, in fact both. Have showed @kishanprmr this. CHat GPT token doesnt work. Simple Rss to Twee does not work.

And the one use case that I bought AP for (Automatic blog writing from SHeets), never worked. Sharing the issue link with you to you.

The documentation is lacking. Eg. I still haven’t managed to connect Excel, as there is no complete documentation and nobody replies to the topic in this forum.


Hi @Tobias_Geisler ,

Could you please share details about the error you are encountering while connecting to Microsoft Excel?

I just checked again, and my setup suddenly seems to be working (before it said “an unexpected error occurred” in the workbook selection). Still, my point holds, we need explicit documentation on how to set up connections. I descried the issue in this thread.

Getting Excel to run involved searching on Google, finding this thread , moving on to this the microsoft integration guide and then just guessing which rights should be assigned where and hope it would work (which initially it didn’t). Then weeks of no replies to my inquiries followed and finally now the error seems to have been fixed. Not exactly a polished feel to setting up an Excel connection.


Unfortunately I mostly share the experiences of @Adik and @Tobias_Geisler.
In theory Activepieces is a great product, but there’s next to no documentation and pieces are more often than not fragile and/or unintuitive. Activepieces markets itself als “no-code business automation”, but in my experience it’s too much of an abstraction leak and definitely not reliable enough to serve these purposes well.

On paper there’s a large number of pieces/integrations, but in practice a lot of them are incomplete, fragile or outright broken. It feels like a classic “quantity over quality” situation.
I suppose this might be a case of “open source syndrome”: a bunch of awesome people have graciously donated their time to contribute pieces for their usecase, without taking into account the platform as a whole. This seems to have created a flood of low quality/poorly thought out/fragile pieces.

To be clear, I don’t think this is the responsibility of these awesome contributors. They just want to get their work done, they’ve already gone out of their way to donate their time to someone else’s commercial product. However, given that Activepieces is a commercial venture, I’d expect the developers to be more involved with quality control, for example by adjusting and extending these altruistic contributions to match quality standards.

Please don’t see this as some kind of roast though! I assure you all of my (admittetly intense) feedback comes from a place of love and genuine enthusiasm for this project, and I hope I’ll be able to contribute more to improving these things soon.

1 Like

I agree with the above. We need normal documentation for each cube, for each function. So that by going to a cube or opening a function, you can understand why it is needed and how to use it correctly. If it doesn’t fit into the cube, at least a link from this cube to a page with a description and examples.

And yes… when I paid for the product, I looked at the huge list of services with which it can work, but in fact it turned out that there was very, very limited functionality. It’s good that there are tasks for which I was able to use it.

Of course, you started doing some kind of training, but it’s more like an introduction to programming. And for some reason, instead of development, there is now a regular rewriting of the first tutorials.

It seems to me that you would be better off spending this time on a detailed description of at least the basic functionality. Especially the trigger one, from which all flows begin.

1 Like

I appreciate the honest feedback but this topic is dedicated to understand the gaps to a polished product so let’s keep it a productive place for that!

In real life, we have thousands of users relying on Activepieces so this is not the exact concern we have, the concern is to understand how we could get to an awesome final product.


1 Like

These are not reviews, but feedback from customers on the shortcomings of the product. It is unclear what exactly you want to hear in this topic? Can you rephrase the request?

Your feedback is great and we’re taking it seriously, but @HoldYourWaffle’s last comment was unproductive in this thread (while it could be good feedback in a separate post).

Regarding documentation, I agree and let me explain what we are doing at the Automation School:

  • We are writing and refining the first basic course to agree on the tone, style and nature of the future lessons.

  • We’d like then to identify the gaps in the content in collaboration with the community.

  • We’ll cover these gaps and more.

While this might take some time, we want this to be an integral part of the Activepieces community rather than just quick documentation done through development.

I’ll post a similar topic to this one soon to identify gaps in the content and the learning material to include it in our plan.


@Tobias_Geisler Our goal is to polish the product and the learning journey around it.

We don’t make promises that we’ll reply to all individual requests in the community. Thanks for pointing out to your issue so we can see how the product can seem more polished in the areas you mentioned.

Specifically, the generic error you got is what concerns us as you don’t have a clear way to resolve the issue by yourself.