Ability to set single-select formula value?

When you install the software development app, it starts with “Severity” and “Priority” single-select fields on the Bug type. The options have names like “High”, “Medium”, “Low”, but they also have a number value that’s accessed in a “Pain” formula.

I’d like to do something similar for the Effort field, but I can’t find the option to set/edit the number value in the UI, and the API is vague on how to create an enum with number values. My schema has “Development/Value” as a type, but when I try to create an enum that uses it I get “Field Development/Value was not found in type Development/Effort_Development/Story.”

Is there a way to set these number values using the API?

This is tricky. You can add Value field to Single Select as shown below. In fact Single Select is just a Type under the hood and you can add as many fields as you wish and access them via Formulas or API

good answer

Aha, that did the trick! Lovely, thank you :relaxed:

1 Like

This is a great feature. Wish I’d known about it sooner.
Given that a single-select is just a type under-the-hood, is it possible to link a single-select field to more than one parent type? Or even the same type more than once?
Sometimes it’s useful to have the enumerations defined once but used several places…

Also, @mdubakov is multi-select also just a type under-the-hood? Seems like it.

It is not possible to link a single select field to more than one parent type. Otherwise things can go crazy :slight_smile:

Multi-select is also just a type.

1 Like

Hi all,

Just wondering, if I wanna assign a single-select value in a formula, for example to update the state of a Feature based on all the User Stories in it (i.e. once all US are Done, mark the Feature as Done).

I do not see how this answer solves that? I remember @ChrisG highlighting that I can give single-select options additional fields, which is great, but I don’t think I can select them in a formula.

It does seem to me that I can use this workaround:

But I’d think this is ugly enough for being a proper solution, no?

1 Like

Assuming you have Feature → User Stories, then I can think of a couple of ways to do it:

  1. You can have an automation in the User Story db that runs when the state becomes Done, and updates the parent Feature’s State (based on a formula that checks that there are no linked User Stories that are not done, and if so, sets the State to Done). This would use a construction like you have shown.
  2. You can have a formula in the Feature db, e.g. [User Stories].filter(State.Name = 'Done').Count() = [User Stories].Count() and then an automation to update the Feature State to Done when this is True.
1 Like

Thanks, @Chr1sG! I see where I went wrong :man_facepalming:

That said, it still doesn’t feel neat, because what I want is:

  • Have an automation that updates the Feature whenever a User Story state changes: It’ll check if the parent Feature has any remaining open User Stories and if not, sets the Feature to Done.
  • The problem is: If I use a formula to check for open user Stories, I need to assign the Done state from the formula. That is only possible with the convoluted construct from my screenshot, where I filter for a Feature with my intended state and assign that… (as you say in your answer #1)

Your solution 2 would allow me to do a static assignment of Done in the Feature, which is neat. But it then convolutes my database with a formula that’s not really providing any data value, but is needed for working around a tooling limitation. This is clearly not desirable long-term. :slightly_smiling_face:

In the end, the most elegant approach would be to be able to refer to specific states (single/multi-select options) in a formula. For example via Features.States.Done or a similar syntax. This also has the advantage that it’ll break and throw errors, when the states get modified.

Thanks! :slightly_smiling_face:

You’re right, that both my suggestions are sub-optimal. I know that @antoniokov is aware of this use case, and it is likely that we will support the ability to set a state just by assigning a string. in this case you could use suggestion #1 without needing the convoluted workaround.

1 Like

Thanks @Chr1sG!

Though I would think that assigning by type (i.e. Features.States.Done) is better than assigning by string "Done" because:

  1. It’s more robust in case the single-selects or multi-selects get renamed
  2. It’s in line of how one can assign an entity in a relationship


Well, I kinda glossed over how we are thinking of implementing it by saying ‘string’. It is possible/likely that users would actually be able to type something like:
which would map to a State ID in the backend, so that if the State options were renamed, the formula would still work (and any change would be reflected in the formula).


Glad to hear, thanks! :slightly_smiling_face:

Just re-visiting this as I came across another case where I have a relations hip to a parent with multiple single-selects for classification, that I wanted to summarise in a child in order to make a Board View less cluttered.

So you want the child entities to have a formula-generated field which takes the combination of multiple single-select in the parent?
And this field itself should behave like a single-select (be used for rows/columns etc.).
Did I understand correctly?

Hi @Chr1sG,

Yes, I want to be able to have Single-Select (or Multi-Select, Icon, etc.) as possible formula outcome and with the according value. The reason is that Boards only allow certain field types to be used for the row/column labels. Also, I clearly prefer structured data to free text, so if I can generate controlled dictionaries rather than free text, then that’s a plus. :slightly_smiling_face:

Just a thought: Maybe in the formula editor I should be able to select the output type, rather than it be generated.

I don’t think there is any way to get an enum (single-select or multi-select) as the output of a formula, if you need the formula to take into account that the parent has multiple single-select fields.
Those multiple single-selects in the parent correspond to multiple (hidden) databases, and if it were possible to combine them into a single field, it would be something akin to supporting a polymorphic relation, which is not currently possible.

So I can set up a parent with two single select (A, B and 1, 2) an exploded single select (A1, A2, B1, B2) in the child entity and I could make 2 formulae on the parent that trigger whenever one of the parent single select changes to set the child single select based on their values… but I cannot assign single-select values…

Anyway, not possible for now. :ok_hand:

I had understood your request as wanting the child to have a (multi-)select field that included choices A, B, 1 and 2, which it would inherit from the parent’s options.
But now I understand it to mean that the you want the child to have a (single-)select field that includes the 4 possible combinations.
I guess this is only possible using an automation, whereby the child single-select (with the 4 options pre-defined) is updated based on changes to the parent’s single-selects.

I thought so, but in my formula I cannot assign the single-select of the child… :frowning:

I guess I could have 4 automations…