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. [image]

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,…

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, t…

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 …

[image] myg_ge: Not sure if this is a bug… It is not a bug . [image]

We’re still collecting feedback and use cases, and will possibly/probably improve the rule options according to demand.

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 m…

[image] 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 filte…

[image] 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. …

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).…

[image] 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

Entity view rules are extremely limited

Ideas & Features

mdubakov March 5, 2026, 1:12pm 14

Now you can check for user role in rules

Topic		Replies	Views
Entity View rules - and/or relation between entity filters and user filters Ideas & Features automations	0	25	April 6, 2026
Filters: Add User Role Ideas & Features	0	28	March 5, 2026
Allow custom entity views/layouts to be completely hidden if they don't match rule	2	101	March 7, 2026
March 5, 2026 / 🙈 Hide Entity Views with rules, Specify which Entity View to open by default for a user, Validation rules on Create Changelog	26	602	March 12, 2026
For "hide entity view rule" - allow relation "contains/does not contain" on formula fields Ideas & Features entity-view , formulas	3	44	March 12, 2026

Entity view rules are extremely limited

Related topics