Recursive Table Bug on Table that has been deleted

I am getting the error below when using Recursive Table API. It is referring to an old item in a table that doesn't exist anymore. I've gone through and made new tables (with new names) and deleted the old references just to be sure. However, I am still getting this error. It is like the table, and item referencing the tables, still exist somewhere that I cannot see. The table where this line item existed has been deleted. The line itself no longer exists. The two tables being referred to, no longer exist. (From RecursiveTables): An error occured parsing this roll: book of [[ 1t[subject] ]] of the [[ 1t[interest] ]] Error: Cannot read property 'id' of undefined Help is much appreciated, Villagelder

What triggers the error? Are you using a pre-existing macro or a manual API call?

This is a sequence of calls. The most concerning thing to me is that is referencing a record that is no where to be found in my order of operations. Here is my sequence of events: Click this macro Runs this code Calls this table Referencing these tables Results on line 1 of trinketmaker are good, but anything else results in the error. Also subject and interest tables do not exist (deleted), nor does that line causing the error exist (deleted, but still referenced somewhere). The cannot read property 'id' of undefined means that line of code is trying to reference tables that don't exist. That is a correct statement. However, the line item with 'subject' and 'interest' doesn't exist (visibly) in any tables. Thanks, Villagelder

What are the contents of the tables called tomes, course and geo-dragonlance? It sounds like somewhere in the chain of table calls a result of the non-existent tables is being attempted, if any of the rows in those tables results in a call to subject or interest (sounds like the tomes table most likely) then you'll need to amend, delete or remove them.

Wow. I feel foolish...  :) You were right on. Thanks!

Haha, no worries... happy to help. You aren't likely the first, nor likely the last to make similar mistakes. Welcome to the club ;)