Allow drag-drop sorting Rules (similar to drag-drop sorting of Access Templates)

Please implement drag-drop sorting of Rules (similar to drag-drop sorting of Access Templates), that is the first minor improvement that the Rules UI can have. Tagging and linking Rules would be the next step after that, thus making Rules entities.


Note: With the introduction of Highlights, the next logical step is to make Fibery support better workflows to create and make use of that data.

I think there are three core features of Fibery that drive cycles of intelligent input and output:

  1. Data: Highlights
  2. Processes: Automations (workflows)
  3. Insights: AI Workspace Data Expert

The Automations feature is in my opinion underdeveloped at this stage.


Hey @Yuri_BC,

i agree that drag and drop for rules would improve the user experience. I am interested in your opinion on automations, what are the features that are currently missing in your opinion? What kind of use-cases are you looking to implement using automations. An example or two would be very helpful :pray:


For me:

  1. Need to be be able to clone/duplicate automations!
  2. Need to be able to had a delay to automations so formulas can catch up and loops falsely be detected.
  3. Allowing “if statement”-style splitting of actions into different flows based on previous action.

Can you give an example of where the result of a formula calculation could be useful in preventing false loop detection?

Thank you for posting this. Had this in my feedback list too. As I have many rules in one of my databases, a simple reorder feature and maybe something like folders for sorting certain automations would be a big quality of life improvement.

Also, the features @interr0bangr mentions are welcome. While IF-statement implementation will be not that easy, cloning and duplicating would add great comfort of use.

I am not sure what you mean with delaying the automation executions. As far as I know, formulas and rules are using async functions, so they normally would not cause any conflicts. Personally, I din’t encounter any, but a demonstration / example would be great. Maybe I am wrong here.

Maybe I’m misspeaking because I’m not sure exactly how the loop detection works, but sometimes I want to trigger an automation on a formula-based checkbox where one of the steps may update the checkbox itself and there’s a filter to try and prevent the loop, but because the checkbox isn’t updated in time to stop the loop it fails.

I figured a delay of 10 seconds or something between loops might help in those cases.

Another use case for a delay would be if a rule is triggered by accident (for example, a task’s state is changed from “In Progress” to “Complete”, but the user realizes a few moments later that it should still be “In Progress” and changes the state back), there could be a grace period that could stop a further step from happening if the trigger criteria is no longer met.

I’m used to using Hubspot workflows and they do delays and conditional branching really well.

If you’re triggering on a checkbox being updated, then I don’t understand how it can be true that ‘the checkbox isn’t updated in time’ :thinking:

I am doing a similar thing in my task management, but without integrations of external tools like Hubspot. For example:

  1. A date is set → Triggers to set a checkbox to true with a Formula.
  2. If checkbox is true → Automation is triggered.

So in conclusion I ask myself the same question as @Chr1sG .
Can you maybe explain it step by step in more detail?

1 Like


And more in general:

Being able to add more logic/conditions in the step 1 filters and step 2+ actions of the automation.

We often need a bunch of ‘help’ formulas to prevent that the automation runs or to trigger the automation. Which slows down the workspace.

1 Like