🦜 April 2, 2026 / Show Fields from relation without Lookup, AI Integration Agent

[Eva_Folch]

Any hope that one day we will be able to upload a file through the make.com Module? For the ones that can not code

[mdubakov]

there is always hope!

[Eva_Folch]

[helloitse]

@mdubakov

Fibery AI: Ask/Build mode no more

I’d come to like the ask/build distinction. Fibery AI was less prone to taking rash actions that claude. However, I knew this was a better future. I have to say i really like that Fibery always asks before taking action. That’s the quality control I need.

[Jonathan1]

@mdubakov

Show Fields from relation without Lookup

Will it be possible to extend this possibility on Automation Filters ?

I’m trying to build features around the People field but if the field allow multiple people, we are very limited on automations.

Example with a people field for multiple users called Assigned To (Related fields are not available) :

Example with a people field for a single user (Related fields are available) :

It would be very useful to be able to filter on related fields of users when the people field allow multiple users.

[Chr1sG]

@Jonathan1

It would be very useful to be able to filter on related fields of users when the people field allow multiple users.

Can you give an example, since the filter condition needs to work on the linked entities in aggregate.

AFAIU, this is not an issue that really relates to the recent ability to show related fields, since they too only work on to-one relations.

[Jonathan1]

@Chr1sG

Can you give an example, since the filter condition needs to work on the linked entities in aggregate.

I have a Task DB with an Assigned To multiple people field. I want to build options around the Assigned To users and my Space context, allowing them to enable or disable options for the Space.

For example, on what I’m trying to achieve right now, is to create the possibility for the users to enable or not notifications on Tasks. For that, I created a Multi Select field with two possibilities : Start Date / Due Date. By adding one option or both, the user can choose the kind of notifications he want to receive.

This options aren’t created on the Task DB but on a separate one dedicated for the settings of the Space. This settings DB is not linked to my Task DB but to my users with a one to one relation. So every user have his settings set for the Space.

User - Space ABC Settings

User ←→ Tasks (Assigned To)

I need to filter on User Space Settings DB in order to notify only the Users that want to be notified.

[Chr1sG]

@Jonathan1

I need to filter on User Space Settings DB in order to notify only the Users that want to be notified.

Imagine such a case where there is a Task, with Assignees called Steve, Joe and Mary. For Steve the multiselect field (in the SpaceSettings db) is set to Start Date, for Joe it’s set to Due Date and for Mary it’s set to both Start Date and Due Date.

If I understand correctly, you want an automation that triggers on some event in the Task db to be filtered according to the value of the multiselect field?
How do you imagine a filter would work?

If it somehow were possible to define a filter which was:
Assigned To → Multi Select is Due Date
should the Task automation be allowed to execute?

Overall, you’re trying to setup a filter through several levels of relation:
Task↔Assigned To—SpaceSetting↔MultiSelect
which is pretty complicated

[Jonathan1]

@Chr1sG

Imagine such a case where there is a Task, with Assignees called Steve, Joe and Mary. For Steve the multiselect field (in the SpaceSettings db) is set to Start Date, for Joe it’s set to Due Date and for Mary it’s set to both Start Date and Due Date.

If I understand correctly, you want an automation that triggers on some event in the Task db to be filtered according to the value of the multiselect field?
How do you imagine a filter would work?

There will be 1 automation / per option.

On my “Start Date” automation, I will check if my Multi Select field contains the “Start Date” option on user Setting set.

Does that seem coherent?

[Chr1sG]

@Jonathan1

On my “Start Date” automation, I will check if my Multi Select field contains the “Start Date” option on user Setting set.

Does that seem coherent?

Sure, but presumably the action(s) to be executed are going to be dependent on these values anyway (I assume that you’re notifying only the assignees who have chosen ‘Start Date’ as an option in the multi see elect).
So why do you need to bother having a filter on the trigger, why not use a formula in the action to determine who to notify?

[Jonathan1]

@Chr1sG

So why do you need to bother having a filter on the trigger, why not use a formula in the action to determine who to notify?

Seems to be a good solution but how to do that ? I suppose that you are talking about the following action :

I’ve tried to build the formula but I’m not able to get a collection of Users based on the setting I’m looking for.

[Chr1sG]

Let us know the field names and relations and I’ll try and suggest a formula

[Chr1sG]

Add this formula on the User db (called Tasks Notifications): [Project Management Setting].[Tasks Notifications].Join(Name,";")

then use this formula in the To field of the Notify Users action of the automation:
[Step 1 Task].[Assigned To].Filter(Find([Tasks Notifications],"Start Date")>0)

The automation will get triggered without a filter, but only Users who have included the Start Date option in the Project Management Settings’ Tasks Notification multi select will get notified

[Jonathan1]

Thanks for your help, it works !

Could you please consider adding access to related fields in a “too many” relationship on filters for a future update ? I believe this would greatly expand Fibery’s capabilities and also simplify the creation of this type of function.

Another feature I’d like to see is the ability to filter using a formula. Not only on automations but also on quick filters of views.

[Chr1sG]

@Jonathan1

Could you please consider adding access to related fields in a “too many” relationship on filters for a future update ?

The problem you faced does not actually require ‘access to related fields for a to-many relation’. What is currently missing is a ‘contains’ function for collections.

For example, your case would be solved if a single formula was possible as follows:

[Step 1 Task].[Assigned To].Filter([Project Management Setting].[Tasks Notifications] contains "Start Date")

I think what you need is this:

"Contains" formula function

For comparing strings, as well as comparing a collection and a single entity. Does entity x exist in collection y. Possible with the workaround “Find()” function, but a lot less clean.

[Eva_Folch]

@Jonathan1

Another feature I’d like to see is the ability to filter using a formula. Not only on automations but also on quick filters of views.

I also find formulas in pins, and Color would also be very practical! I hate extra fields in my databases; I love a minimalistic workspaces. Some fields I have only for filter or for a color, would be solved if a formula was posible in the Filter and Color section. Like, Amount is not = 0….Amount field is not equal to another Amount field …. Description “contains” something… etc.

[Eva_Folch]

Is there a way we can see the “edited name” of the Pin Filter on the Filter list, somehow visible on the filter list? I have 18 filters, and when I need to change something, it’s hard to tell which one is which.

[Jonathan1]

The solution you’re proposing is already at the action level. In my case, I really would like to process entities only if they are affected. Why process entities that aren’t concerned by the action ?

[Chr1sG]

@Jonathan1

I really would like to process entities only if they are affected. Why process entities that aren’t concerned by the action ?

In your case, you would need a filter that was something like this

[Step 1 Task].[Assigned To].[Project Management Settings].[Tasks Notifications] contains 'Start Date'

which is three levels of relational lookup. I don’t think it is very likely that we would be able to support that in a performant way.
It’s probably less load on the system to allow the automation to be triggered and not do anything than it is to evaluate this filter query on each trigger

[nathan_jay]

@mdubakov

Show Fields from relation without Lookup

This is one of the features I didn’t know I needed until it arrived. Now I find myself reaching for it all the time and its awesome. Nice work team.