module function · N/redirect
toRecordTransform()
redirect.toRecordTransform(options)
Redirects to a standard or custom transaction instance.
- Implementation
- Not started
- Design
- Open for proposals suggest how it should read
A
suitescript api
1redirect.toRecordTransform({2 fromId: /* number, required */,3 fromType: /* string, required */,4 toType: /* string, required */,5 parameters: /* Object, optional */6});| Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| options.fromId | number | required | The ID of the source record. |
| options.fromType | string | required | The ID of the source record type. |
| options.toType | string | required | The ID of the target record type. |
| options.parameters | Object | optional | Contains additional parameters as key-value pairs. |
B
mynt syntax
Not supported yet, on purpose.
redirect transform SalesOrder(1) to Invoice is refused. NetSuite documents toRecordTransform for workflow action scripts, which Mynt does not have, and transform there would otherwise perform the transformation. 12 Oct 2026
It stays open for proposals: a design that resolves this is welcome.
C
community proposals
Competing syntax for toRecordTransform, from GitHub Discussions. Select two or more to compare them side by side.
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,saveandRef[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?