Duplicate automations

Hi there, is it possible to quickly duplicate rules or buttons? I’m finding I am repeating similar rules and would be great to be able to duplicate existing rules.

Yas, I want this so bad. I am using a script to check rich text description fields every hour and then give me an icon if it contains anything, and I’d LOVE to just use it for ALL databases with a quick copy/paste sort of action (a batch add would be ideal, but baby steps for now lol), but having to manually re-type it for all of them has made me abandon it for most databases.

I was actually thinking that being able to define “templates” might be a good way of achieving this. That way you can have a centralized location to manage some frequently used automations. If there was a way of updating all automations based on the same template, but still keep the customized parameters, that would be the icing on the cake :grin:

1 Like

Related: Centralized script management for Workspace


Hmm, do we need a proper feature request for the creation of a central place to manage Automations + Buttons? Being able to Duplicate would be helpful within a given Database, of course, but even better would be if there was a central location where you could e.g. copy an Automation from one DB to another, either with a guided remapping process for the fields in the Automation, or just redoing it manually through the regular editor afterward. Of course you could just have the Duplicate function requested here allow for you to specify a different DB, but I think sooner or later having a central location with e.g. filters to look at individual DB’s automations, will become important and valuable.


Probably :wink:
The closest I could find was this:

1 Like

Right, exactly…

@Matt_Blais do you think your feature request there makes sense to expand to a general cross-DB library for automations and scripts? Or should a separate one be made?

YES - I think the more we can consolidate the various aspects of “Script/Automation Management” into one feature, the more powerful it will ultimately be.

Of course the downside is, the bigger your ask, the longer it will probably take. :cry:

1 Like

Well… yes and no, or perhaps I should say… maybe. This is not always true, but consider this: in the case of your particular feature request, I would argue that it may be niche enough as to quite honestly not be something that would be prioritized in any foreseeable future. That is not to say it’s not a good idea, valuable to you and some other people who are heavy script users. But I suspect the number of people it might help is less than 20% of Fibery users. That might be a tough sell for the dev team. Especially if developing the “library” concept is a similar amount of work for that vs. a more broad library that also encompasses Automations (that’s speculative on my part, and clearly it would be some more work to add automations in there).

Anyway, that’s a long-winded way of saying that, while expanding the scope might make it take a bit longer, it could also make it a more broadly beneficial feature request that could garner additional support from the larger percentage of users it may benefit, and also make it easier for the dev team to prioritize. Perhaps… :grin:

I have the ability to edit your Title but not the body text of your Topic. So would you like to go ahead and change it to expand the scope (both in Title and Body/Description)?

I think this is an important point. I think there has been a push and pull in the forum to keep the ideas somewhat specific and break out variation or extensions of ideas into new requests. I think the main point has been to be able to measure support for specific ideas through votes as well as be able to provide feedback to the community on status of each idea (since the team likely will only tackle only a subset of a bigger idea). However, I think this actually leads to fragmentation and duplication of a lot of similar ideas. So instead of building on top of each other’s ideas and needs, we end up creating separate streams and discussions.

@Oshyan , @Matt_Blais and @Chr1sG have been doing an excellent job of linking related items together. However, I’m hoping we can find a better way of breaking down larger ideas and tracking them and allow the discussions in the community to be “additive”.

I think as the Fibery becomes more feature rich on the public side, we can hopefully leverage Fibery itself to make this possible.

1 Like

If I could provide my 2 cents. I would be slightly disappointed if this got rolled up into a larger feature to do with templating or scripting or similar.
This request (in my mind) is a simple button to be able to duplicate a single rule so I don’t have to recreate it from scratch with a slight variation.


@roblineker i couldn’t agree more. Yes, I would LOVE a central hub to organize and coordinate all the automations in my workspace, do batch updates/assignments, etc…but for now, just the ability to effectively copy/paste individual automations and buttons via templating, scripting, AND ad hoc (perhaps through right-clicks and/or another quick method) be a lovely step in the right direction.

1 Like

Yes, I did not mean to imply that this feature request would/should be incorporated into a larger one for an “automations and scripts hub”. I agree that some simpler functionality like this is a good stop-gap in the meantime. I was more replying to the link Matt made between this (about automations) and scripts, and the broader consideration of how to best handle increasing numbers of both in your overall Fibery workspace(s)/workflow.

As far as this specific feature request, do you envision it literally just being a simple “Duplicate this automation” with no options, which would just immediately make a copy in the same database with e.g. “Automation name Copy” as the name, which you then rename and make your adjustments to? Or are you wanting/needing it to have options like “Duplicate to which database?”, etc?