I don’t think what you were referring is the same @B_Sp.
I think what you’re referring to in relation to moving items through a process could be easily achieved using Fibery automations. We do that with some of our processes.
On a side note, one thing we’ve also done is to create a super long workflows and then split it into different views, so when someone moves an entity into the right most column of one view, it automatically appears on the left most column in another view. No automations needed.
Anyway, I think my comments to @Chr1sG above should clarify what I was referring to more clearly. I thought I was clear in the original video at the top and subsequent comments, but maybe not.
Sorry @webinit I didn’t make myself clear. What I meant was: do any of your users need a workflow that has multiple possible paths? In other words, from state A, it is possible to go to B or C, and from B it is possible to go back to A or onwards to D, etc.?
Or is it acceptable for the flow to just be A → B → C → D?
Also, when there are user specific workflows, are the states the same for all users? Or is it possible that John needs Open → In Progress → Done but Stacey needs Pending → Active → Archived ?
I’m not certain I’m clear on your question @Chr1sG. At the moment we transition between states either manually or using automations. There’s nothing to stop us in any workflow from moving a card from A to C or D and back to B or A again. That’s fully possible and we do do that, both manually and through automations. I can show you an example at some stage if needed.
So far, for us, when dealing with a single entity, everyone just needs the same workflow. I’ve not come across a situation yet where variance in that is needed.
Now, for each Task you will see a set of states for each Assignee, and because fields can now be edited inline, the State can be updated without leaving the Task entity view.
Also, you can have a board view (of Assignee state cards) which represents Task progress per Assignees:
