Cross Entity "Tags" via using Single Select and keeping names identical?

Hi guys,

If you have a chance, I’d love to get your feedback here:

I was trying to categorize Types within in App. Ideally, I would like to do this with “tags,” but they don’t exist yet as such. I believe you have talked about an extension for tags.

So what I did as an experiment was I created a single-select in both of the Types in question, that I want to have in the same “category” of Type. My example is I have two types of Vendors, “Suppliers” and “Growth Vendors”. In order to try to group these two Types, I named the single-select field exactly the same in each type, you can see highlighted in yellow in these two images below:

I have also highlighted in the 2nd image in blue the different names of these types so you can see they are different.

Then, I named the actual single-select the same, “vendor,” highlighted in pink.

I then created a board within the App, chose the two types, and sure enough I was offered as a column type just one single-select option, although this is in fact two separate Types in question.

Then, when I created the board, I was able to see both types with the same “option” from the single-select, “vendor:”

So by naming both the single-select field the same, and the “option” in the single-select dropdown the same, even though these are two different Types, I create a view where I can see these together as if they are grouped with a typical “tag” or “label”! This is fantastic as I did not expect Fibery to be able to recognize the common data across two Types.

What’s more, in this de facto “category” of “vendor” from the single-select column in the board, I could create an entity of either type!

This means I can quickly add into my makeshift category an entity and it will automatically pick up that value from the single-select, terrific!

So by using the identical wording in the single-select, it appears the boards will look at the single-select field and if they are they have the same wording, treat them as common to the types in question - brilliant!

I would be curious if this is some sort of hidden functionality that you guys could elaborate on - perhaps there are some other uses?

Thanks guys!