Have workflows wait for webhook response for better ux and sequential runs

We occasionally execute complex workflows in Make.com triggered by a button press in Noloco. Currently, when a scenario in Make.com takes a long time to complete, Noloco only shows a success notification when the webhook is sent, without immediately displaying the result of the scenario. This can be confusing for the user, as they don’t see the outcome of their action right away.

We would like to request that the webhook step in Noloco has the ability to wait for a response before proceeding. This enhancement would allow the user to see a loading animation indicating that the workflow is in progress. The success notification should only appear once the changes made by the Make.com scenario are visible in Noloco. Additionally, this would enable the running of multiple Make.com scenarios sequentially within a single workflow.

Example use Case:
Consider a scenario where a user generates and sends a PDF from an order in Noloco by pressing a button. The workflow would proceed as follows:

  • The user presses the button to generate the PDF.
  • A workflow starts, triggering a Make.com scenario to generate the PDF and add it to the database.
  • The Make.com scenario responds with a 200 status code once the PDF is generated and stored.
  • The workflow then continues to the next step, which involves sending the PDF to the customer.
    (Throughout this process, the Noloco user sees a loading animation, indicating that the operation is ongoing.)
  • Once the PDF is sent and the Make.com scenario responds, the workflow completes.
  • The user receives a success notification and can immediately see the generated PDF in Noloco.


  • Enhanced user experience by providing clear feedback during long-running operations.
  • Improved workflow management by allowing sequential execution of multiple Make.com scenarios (and other operations outside noloco).
  • Reduced confusion and increased satisfaction as users can see the immediate results of their actions.
1 Like

Hey @Lorenzo_Boers - workflows run asynchronously, so this won’t be possible.

They are placed on a queue and ran as soon as possible.

If you want to improve the user experience, we typically suggest creating a loading state, so the user knowns the workflow isn’t done yet.

This could be updating a status field to ‘Loading’ and then in your workflow put it back to ‘Complete’

Then using visibility rules to show/hide a notice

I understand. So, if I have this right, I would need to create an additional “status” field in the database with states such as “loading” and “ready” for a specific operation. Then, I can use dynamic visibility to show a loading notice in the record where the user expects to see the data.


If you want to see a great example of this, @sonorus does this very nicely in this video

1 Like

Perfect @darragh. I already have several yes/no fields in my database that trigger different automations and reset after the operation runs successfully. So, I can link a loading notice directly to that! This approach also gives us more flexibility in how we display the notice or other elements. Thanks!

1 Like