Basic Relation between the same Type

Hi again guys,

I was trying to set up a relation between entities in the same type. I wanted to create a “related to” simple relation, similar to what you can do in Jira, Github, some other apps. I wanted to have this “many-to-Many” as there could be a need for a couple of such relations in an entity.

I notice though when I do this with the same entity Type, I get two fields on the entity. When I relate between any other entities, you only have the one field. I could see that this could be useful if you wanted to create a outward/inward relation, this is actually a good feature of Jira that is useful:

But I’d like to also be able to create a simple relation between entities in the same Type, but many-to-Many. Is this something you guys would consider adding?

Thanks!

1 Like

Bidirectional links between entities of the same type would be very useful. Bidirectional links with associated semantic meaning would be amazing. Then be able to generate network diagram in whiteboard [falls backwards in chair etc]

1 Like

Great, glad you like the idea and welcome to the community!

1 Like

We are thinking about that, but first we’ll implement back-references and highlights, maybe it will solve some parts of the problem.

3 Likes

I think the contexual back-refs are amazing and solve a large part of the problem. I will say I still have use-cases where I’d love un-directed/bi-directed links still.

Not a huge priority, just wanted to register that it still would be great!

2 Likes

Yes, thanks @colman. I still have need for the actual Relations vs. Bi-Directional. The views, for Example, are very well-thought out when you have a Relation vs. just a “mention” via Highlights aka “Bi-Directionals.” And Formulas, and to come Automations, I believe won’t work without a relation?

Cheers!

1 Like