Archiving Entity, in particular one used for "work item"

Hi, and sorry again if this should be a Feature Request.

One of the things I’m hoping for in Fibery with all its flexibility is the ability to give the user the chance to come up with a custom archiving strategy.

I’ve met with quite a few ways this is handled in other apps:

  • Manual archiving: Wrike for example does not archive anything automatically. You have to create an “archive” area, and tag every archive task with this folder. “Done” tasks are removed from a lot of default views as they are not considered “active,” but this is a very limited solution, requiring way too much manual work.

  • Auto-archiving after a certain amount of time. Jira will remove issues out of a “done” column after a certain amount of time, into the archive. This is not a bad solution, as they are still visible in search results. But customizing this is a bear in Jira. I tested another app, Favro, that simply let you pick how many days a “done” item stayed in that column in one simple drop down.

Generally I would like to be able to archive certain entities, like the ones I use for tasks/issues such as in the apps I talked about above, but other entities I do not want to have archive at all, such as features of my website. I am not clearly seeing any evidence of archiving at all right now in Fibery. If this is intended, could you let me know if with the release of Automations there will be some good ability to, in essence, create a custom archive solution such as what I’m talking about here? Summing up, certain rules for certain entities so they’d effectively “disappear” from view into an archive, while other entities would not archive at all?

Thanks as always for the help with this!

@B_Sp Obviously, we should implement archiving feature quite soon, since with time it becomes painful to live without it. We did not have nailed how it will work though.

As a temporary workaround, you may hide old items from done state using this filter:

@mdubakov, thanks for the tip, and I am impressed with the sophistication you already have built into the current filters!

This also occurred to me as a makeshift solution for the question I posed earlier here:

Where you would set up a view with a filter for just the last column that is the “done” state of a candidate that is potentially going to be hired, or a client prospect that you have now won. It occurred to me however this still wouldn’t solve that problem, as if I wanted to add relations across entities, and I have in the same type both CRM prospects, and CRM actual clients, I will always get a list of both. I suppose it’s not in the works to have variants of type lists available in other types that would be filtered?

Either way, as I think this through more thoroughly, I still think it would be a terrific feature to be able to convert/promote an entity from one type to another, and key being to bring all the data across, and note in the new entity a reference that it originated via a different type initially.

Thanks again for listening!