mynt

Record object method · N/record

save()

Record.save(options)

Submits a new record or saves edits to an existing record.

Implementation
Implemented published in npm 0.0.1
Design
Accepted save r
Proposals
A suitescript api
Signature
Record.save(options)
Module
N/record
Returns
number
Governance
Transaction records: 20 units Custom records: 4 units All other records: 10 units
Script types
Client and server scripts
Version
SuiteScript 2.x, documented for 2.1; since NetSuite 2015.2
call shapefrom Oracle's parameter table
objRecord.save();
Oracle reference for this method

Oracle lists no parameters for this method.

B mynt syntax

Supported syntax · compiles today

myntsave r
1customer.comments = "Reviewed"2save customer
suitescriptoutput, trimmed
1customer.setValue({2    fieldId: "comments",3    value: "Reviewed"4});5 6customer.save();

save is a statement and discards the id NetSuite returns. soft save allows mandatory fields to be left empty (ignoreMandatoryFields: true) and save r sourced sources dependent fields (enableSourcing: true); both are in the compiler, not yet published. Published on npm since 0.0.1. Verified with mynt build on 13 Oct 2026.

C community proposals

Competing syntax for save, from GitHub Discussions. Select two or more to compare them side by side, with the syntax Mynt supports today as a baseline.

All discussions
Mynt todaycustomer.comments = "Reviewed"

Loading proposals from GitHub…

D suggest an alternative

Write the Mynt you wish you could write.

A good proposal shows the syntax, the SuiteScript it should become, and argues for it: why it is clearer, how it fits the rest of the language, what it makes harder.

  • Clarity. Does it say what happens, without ceremony?
  • Consistency. Does it read like load, save and Ref[field]?
  • Expressiveness. Does it cover the cases people actually write?
  • Honesty. Does it hide a NetSuite cost, such as governance, that a reader should see?

N/record · Record.save(options)

Suggest syntax for save