👂 Feedback needed: scripts in automations that shouldn't be scripts

[mdubakov]

Try new Script AI Assistant in the latest release

October 3, 2024 / Quick filters on relation and embedded views, Clean email body, Automations Script AI Assistant, and more

In today’s release we added several improvements to recently released features and made a first step to AI Automations assistant. This is the recent feedback we’ve got from one our customer and it generated a lot of dopamine for our team, just want to share it with you as well. I’m deeply impressed by the technical design of Fibery — you guys seem to make excellent trade-offs and design decisions, preferring to add more powerful & simple higher-level abstractions, rather than special-case feat…

[Renato_Carvalho]

+1 here:

Webhook Action in Automations

I hope this becomes an automation/button action. It would increase the usability/flexibility of Fibery for low-code users if there was a UI that builds an API call similar to Zapier and Make.

[gb_carbone]

When a new Time Log is created:

• Set the state of the currently opened time logs to closed
• Set the end date/time of those time logs to now
• Only do that for the time logs owned by the person who triggered the workflow (who created the new time log)

[RonMakesSystems]

@interr0bangr

• There’s no way to loop through multiple matching entities in automation without a script. Any attempt to do so with formula fields gets flagged as an infinite loop, even with very clear and restrictive filters in place.

+1

When templating, it would be great to have the ability to create a new entity for each relation the other entity has. And bind fields based on each of the other relation.

Updating is already possible in bulk, but creating is not yet.

[gb_carbone]

IIRC, I would have to create a script here just to access step 2 results - or are step 2 results accessible at all otherwise?

If we do need to create a script here to access those results, well this is a good case for this thread. Otherwise, would love to know how! And if step 2 results are not accessible even in a script, well that is a bigger issue.

[helloitse]

TIL that there is no way to add a value to a multi-select field of a linked entity - only to clear the old values entirely and set a new one.
To add a value without losing the existing ones, I’ll need to use a script - not cool.

[gomocoop]

Same for collections!

I wish I was able to add entities to a relation field without erasing the ones that are already there.

[Chr1sG]

@gomocoop

I wish I was able to add entities to a relation field without erasing the ones that are already there.

You can. The Link action will link an existing entity. The Add action will add a new entity.
Neither will affect existing linked entities.

[RonMakesSystems]

Only (structured) related entities can be created in automations. This reduces flexibility. I want to create a tasks on trigger, and simply mention the triggering entity in the description. This may be fixed with the new “Global database” coming soon, but either way, it’s something that is possible via script but not via no-code automations.

I’ll add one more I just found out. If there IS a structured relation, but it is autolinked, it is not possible to create a new entity of that type. Yes, it won’t be linked directly, but the names that are set to it will make it auto-linked. Unfortunate.

[Eren_Turgut]

Agree, here is an example:
I have DBs [Outgoing Invoice] and [Invoice Line Items].
I wanted to create a button to create a new invoice based on the chosen one, so it should also create line items (duplicating loses the line items).

That requires looping through the line items and create a new one for each existing one.
It’s possible without scripting too but with unnecessarily complicated workarounds, unless I’m missing something.

[helloitse]

@Ryan_Dejaegher

Here are the automations I have that rely on scripts

Word Count

Fibery already has the .length() method but this is counting characters. My automation has a regex pattern and then updates a number input with the word count whenever the rich text field is edited.

Wanted to surface this and the related feature request Length() Formulas since I know the Rich Text view is under development this year.

[Sev]

Hi @helloitse. You can use the following formula, adjust the \S+ Regex to match your word-counting method. I have included comments in the formula using the find and left hacks; they are absolutely unnecessary for the functionality, of course.

Hope this helps.

Fibery Word Count Formula

Length(ReplaceRegex(
	ReplaceRegex(
		Name,
		"\S+"
		+ Left("COMMENT: your Regex to detect words, e.g. \S+, \w+, [a-zA-Z']+, ...",0)
		,
		"A"+Left("COMMENT: mark every word char. Marker must be a charatcer from the word charas being matched",0)
	),
	"[^A]",
	"" + Left("COMMENT: remove everything else.", 0)
)) + Find("COMMENT: Count the length i.e. number of markers that replaced words.","IMPOSSIBLENEEDLE")

[ID.000]

One common use case that currently often requires a script is calling an external webhook from an Automation Rule.

Many automations don’t actually need JavaScript logic inside Fibery - it only need to notify an external automation tool, such as n8n, Make… when an entity reaches a certain state.

For example:

When Creative Task status becomes “Ready”
→ call webhook
→ send selected fields as payload

Right now, this requires a Script Action only because there is no native “Call Webhook / Send HTTP Request” action in automation rules.

A no-code Webhook Action could be much safer and simpler:

• choose URL;
• choose method, usually POST;
• select fields to include in the payload;
• optionally add static headers;
• optionally include entity id, type, public URL, changed fields, previous values;
• see execution history and response status.

This would cover many real integration cases without allowing arbitrary JavaScript execution inside Fibery. It would also fit well with the current security model. Scripts can effectively have too much power, but a controlled Webhook Action would be much more limited:

• no custom JS;
• no direct Fibery API calls from inside the automation;
• no hidden complex logic;
• payload is explicit and visible;
• external systems can use their own restricted API tokens;
• admins could optionally restrict allowed domains or enable this action with a workspace-level toggle.

For teams like ours, this would remove a big bottleneck. We have trusted Space Architects who build operational automations, but they often only need to trigger external workflows, not write code in Fibery [but they limited with ultra basic automations] .

So a native “Call Webhook / Send HTTP Request” action would be a very useful middle ground between basic no-code actions and full Script Actions.

[timothy]

Yes to this!

“A no-code Webhook Action could be much safer and simpler”

[mdubakov]

@ID.000

So a native “Call Webhook / Send HTTP Request” action would be a very useful middle ground between basic no-code actions and full Script Actions.

working on that right now

[ID.000]

Thank you very much !

[philipp]

I need version control of entities, meaning they may not be edited after they are “Published”. I am doing this by unlinking users after the “Published” state change.

At the same time, the user should be able to create a new entity based on the old one - simple to do with a button - however, the button can only be pressed with edit permissions.

I solved using a Comment-keyword automations but this is way to tedious and very unintuitive to use

It would be great to just have the possibility to give users access to press buttons (i.e. like the separate access to comment but not edit)

[mdubakov]

@timothy

“A no-code Webhook Action could be much safer and simpler”

released today May 21, 2026 / Manage users visibility, Send web request action in automations

[Gerardo_Ducos]

A humble response from a new Fibery user here. I did not have time yet to familiarize myself with all the formulas but here are a few things that will improve functionalities:

SWITCH and SWITCHIF

Ability to name formulas so they can be use across the workspace

Ability to name a value (ie. a variable) to use inside formulas/expressions

LET function

etc.

[Chr1sG]

@Gerardo_Ducos

Ability to name formulas so they can be use across the workspace

Can you explain the use case you have in mind.

@Gerardo_Ducos

Ability to name a value (ie. a variable) to use inside formulas/expressions

Is that this?

Global Variables

Do you have any plans to create global variables? I guess this is linked to the concept of shared code snippets. It would be great if I could create/set a variable for a given workspace and then use it in formulas.