Basic Table - Dynamic or Unknown fields order

[MsBindy]

I have a workflow that is creating new fields.

Then in the Basic Table,  I have the Dynamic or Unknown fields box checked too add those fields.

But the order of those fields is not the same as the incoming order.  Is there a way to force those fields to come in the correct order.

These are the fields coming into the Basic table: 

P-08 2019

P-09 2019

P-10 2019

and so on down to 

P-04 2024

These are all new fields so I have checked to include the Dynamic or Unknown fields in the Basic Table tool;

But when the come out of the Basic table they are in this order:

P-02 2023

P-03-2023

up to P-04 2024

And then they start with P-08 2019

Does anyone know why this is and how I can fix it?

[joelmiller66]

@MsBindy  If you can provide a sample or screenshot of your tool configuration and the results window. It should by default in the Table Tool, add those new ones to the end of the table.

It seems that you might have the Dynamic or Unknown Fields selected ordered in the middle of the table instead of at the end in the Per Column Configuration.

[MsBindy]

I did have my Dynamic or Unknown Fields at the bottom.

But with fresh eyes this morning I see the problem.....which begs a new question.

What is happening is that I run this workflow for different jobs with different time period. 

So when I run it for a project that begins on P-02 2023 the fields all all created beginning with P-02 2023 and all looks good.  This apparently adds those fields to my Basic Table configuration.

But the next project I run the workflow for begins in P-08 2019.   So when the workflow runs,  those P-02 2023 are now pre-existing in the Basic table and my new fields for P-09 2019 through P-01 2023 now all appear at the end of the report.

I think what I might have to do is find the oldest project and run that through the workflow so that the oldest periods are already pre-set in the basic table.  And then as future months occur,  the new months will appear at the end.

This is not ideal,  but I'm pretty sure it will be an effective workaround.  As long as I then don't need to run this for an even older project.