# Entity view rules are extremely limited
**URL:** https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958
**Category:** Ideas & Features
**Tags:** automations
**Created:** [November 5, 2025, 8:53pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958 "2025-11-05T20:53:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 16
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@myg\_ge](https://community.fibery.io/u/myg_ge)
#### Post date: [November 5, 2025, 8:53pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/1 "2025-11-05T20:53:12Z")
Not sure if this is a bug…
It’s nearly impossible to use MultiView on a Users level because of the limited set of available operands. Nothing like “is empty”, “is not empty”, “contains”, “doesn’t contain”, etc.
---
### Author:  [@AdVhPkgKad](https://community.fibery.io/u/AdVhPkgKad)
#### Post date: [November 5, 2025, 9:44pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/2 "2025-11-05T21:44:59Z")
The whole thing doesn’t have parity with other filters.
For one, it only looks at positives (e.g., where something IS value) and not negatives (where state IS NOT ‘final’).
And second, it’s only a single condition. No ability out-of-the-box to say “where x and y and z”.
Both can be worked around, sort of, with a function field, but to make a function per condition rather than baking it into the views themselves seems like an oversight.
---
### Author:  [@AdVhPkgKad](https://community.fibery.io/u/AdVhPkgKad)
#### Post date: [November 5, 2025, 9:54pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/3 "2025-11-05T21:54:50Z")
In your situation, I can see how you might want to use it to check a user role?
Depending on your data structure, if your users have a `user -> users` relationship, say “Manager” and “Manager For”, you could create a formula like `[Manager For].Count() > 0` to see if somebody is a manager for others, then this boolean can be checked as a tab condition.
---
### Author:  [@AdVhPkgKad](https://community.fibery.io/u/AdVhPkgKad)
#### Post date: [November 5, 2025, 9:59pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/4 "2025-11-05T21:59:52Z")
Otherwise, `User.Roles.Filter(Name = "Manager").Sort().Count() > 0` if you’ve set up a roles table for user groups, although the explicit hard-coded string comparison will be impossible to debug if the role name changes in the future. You could use the public ID, or make another column that you won’t ever change. All up to preference, really.
---
### Author:  [@Chr1sG](https://community.fibery.io/u/Chr1sG)
#### Post date: [November 5, 2025, 11:31pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/5 "2025-11-05T23:31:42Z")
> [@myg\_ge](#):
>
> Not sure if this is a bug…
It is [not a bug](https://the.fibery.io/@public/User_Guide/Guide/Multiple-Entity-Views-335/anchor=Rules-to-specify-which-Entity-View-to-op--955d2107-c159-4e60-bf53-f17297e9027d).
---
### Author:  [@Chr1sG](https://community.fibery.io/u/Chr1sG)
#### Post date: [November 5, 2025, 11:32pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/6 "2025-11-05T23:32:38Z")
We’re still collecting feedback and use cases, and will possibly/probably improve the rule options according to demand.
---
### Author:  [@RonMakesSystems](https://community.fibery.io/u/RonMakesSystems)
#### Post date: [November 6, 2025, 5:48am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/7 "2025-11-06T05:48:48Z")
Outside of feedback collected, my vote is always: If it’s going to be done, do it right (consistent with the rest of the system). Even though I haven’t used these rules yet and there more important things to me on the roadmap, I’d be happy if you guys went back and completed this as it makes for a more complete product. Missing things like these make the product feel rushed when doscovered.
The consistency is honestly what made me love Fibery in the first place. Almost all of it is consistent and thought out. Just some things fall through the cracks. This is one (for now).
(File Lookups is another recent one)
---
### Author:  [@mdubakov](https://community.fibery.io/u/mdubakov)
#### Post date: [November 6, 2025, 7:50am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/8 "2025-11-06T07:50:03Z")
> [@RonMakesSystems](#):
>
> If it’s going to be done, do it right (consistent with the rest of the system). Even though I haven’t used these rules yet and there more important things to me on the roadmap,
This is unfair. In this specific place it is quite hard to provide the whole power of filters and if we should go there we should have pretty decent evidence that it will be needed.
---
### Author:  [@RonMakesSystems](https://community.fibery.io/u/RonMakesSystems)
#### Post date: [November 6, 2025, 7:59am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/9 "2025-11-06T07:59:48Z")
> [@mdubakov](#):
>
> it is quite hard to provide the whole power
I see. In which case maybe it is good to explain this in docs and add a link to it in the menu. I think user appreciate “We didn’t do it the same way due to performance or other limits” (almost) as much as the consistent behaviour.
Just sharing how it is received by me. Maybe other see it differently.
I will reiterate that it’s just the fact of how brilliant Fibery is, every added feature has a lot to live up to.
---
### Author:  [@myg\_ge](https://community.fibery.io/u/myg_ge)
#### Post date: [November 6, 2025, 9:19am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/10 "2025-11-06T09:19:29Z")
That’s the word - consistency. Thanks Ron. @mdubakov, it’s pretty awkward feeling to find out very unexpectedly that a set of the same filters I’m used to use in other places in Fibery isn’t available on a User level… I’m not even talking about subfiltering (when there’re db relationships involved). In some places it’s available, in other it isn’t. Don’t get me wrong - I love Fibery! And with that it’s becoming a tough 🙂 love needing to accept these unexpected inconsistencies across filters/coloring/ability to make a group of filters, disable/enable filters, etc. across different areas of Fibery.
---
### Author:  [@Chr1sG](https://community.fibery.io/u/Chr1sG)
#### Post date: [November 6, 2025, 9:35am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/11 "2025-11-06T09:35:42Z")
> [@myg\_ge](#):
>
> a set of the same filters I’m used to use in other places in Fibery isn’t available on a User level
Quick clarification. The limitation is not specific to the User db. It is a limitation for entity view rules everywhere
---
### Author:  [@mdubakov](https://community.fibery.io/u/mdubakov)
#### Post date: [November 6, 2025, 11:03am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/12 "2025-11-06T11:03:41Z")
> [@myg\_ge](#):
>
> That’s the word - consistency.
Consistency is very expensive. It is somewhat similar to “zero bugs“. You can be maybe 95% consistent, but effort is just enormous.
---
### Author:  [@myg\_ge](https://community.fibery.io/u/myg_ge)
#### Post date: [November 6, 2025, 3:05pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/13 "2025-11-06T15:05:27Z")
Makes sense.
---
### Author:  [@mdubakov](https://community.fibery.io/u/mdubakov)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2026, 1:12pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/14 "2026-03-05T13:12:35Z")
Now you can check for user role in rules
> [@March 5, 2026 / see\_no\_evil\_monkey Hide Entity Views with rules, Specify which Entity View to open by default for a user, Validation rules on Create](https://community.fibery.io/t/march-5-2026-hide-entity-views-with-rules-specify-which-entity-view-to-open-by-default-for-a-user-validation-rules-on-create/10491):
>
> see_no_evil_monkey Hide Entity Views based on rules You can now hide specific Entity Views based on rules. This allows you to control which views are visible depending on logged user fields values or entity fields values. To enable Hide Entity View rules, click Views on entity view → … near view name → Set up rules. In many setups, the same entity is used by different teams and across different workflow stages. Over time this leads to problems like: too many tabs on an entity, Views…
---
### Author:  [@cannibalflea](https://community.fibery.io/u/cannibalflea)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2026, 2:01am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/15 "2026-09-05T02:01:04Z")
> [@March 5, 2026 / see\_no\_evil\_monkey Hide Entity Views with rules, Specify which Entity View to open by default for a user, Validation rules on Create](https://community.fibery.io/t/march-5-2026-hide-entity-views-with-rules-specify-which-entity-view-to-open-by-default-for-a-user-validation-rules-on-create/10491/1):
>
> 🙈 Hide Entity Views based on rules
> 🙊 Specify which Entity View to open by default for a user
The view rules are great features and can be super useful in designing more dynamic workflows. However, the filter operators for the rules are limited to a few operators (“is”, “is not”, “contains (any)”, and “does not contain (any)”).
It would be really helpful if we had access to all of fibery’s array of filter operators that are available in other areas of the application, in particular things like “is Empty”, “is Not Empty”, or “Contains” , “greater than/less than, …” . I think some of those criteria, e.g. “is Empty” can be helpful to show/hide views that might be needed at initial creation and not needed at other stages of the entity workflow.
I am not sure if there is a special reason for this or if that is something that will be coming in future releases.
---
### Author:  [@myg\_ge](https://community.fibery.io/u/myg_ge)
#### Post date: [September 9, 2026, 7:08pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/entity-view-rules-are-extremely-limited/9958/16 "2026-09-09T19:08:03Z")
I truly miss two options for “is empty” and “is not empty”. It not only feels incomplete comparing to other similar pieces of functionality used in filters elsewhere, but also doesn’t allow for correct visibility. Could you please fix this?