Often, when displaying hierarchal data together from multiple databases, there are columns that we’d prefer to label differently than the actual field name itself, or fields that we’d like to not display at all on entities from a certain databases, even if it has a field with that name.
For example, we might have single select field called “Type” on both a [Release] and a [Task] and have have a table view where Tasks are a child group below Releases. Right now, the values for the Type field are all displayed in single column labeled “Type” with no option to hide/separate.
-
If we want to show the Release’s Type but hide the Task’s Type in that specific view, we can’t.
-
If we want to see the value for the Type field on both Releases and Tasks in the table, but shown in different columns so it makes more contextual sense in that specific view, we can’t.
-
If we wanted the column name in a specific view to be called “Category” instead of “Type” because it makes more contextual sense in that specific view, we can’t.
I know we technically can if we change the name of the Type fields to be unique for each database, but that has cascading effects on breaking scripts or confusing users, and sometimes we DO want to have them all displayed in a single column, which it then seems crazy to have to use a helper formula field to merge them back together!
Maybe some of this could be solved by a having field visibility on tables managed at a database level (just like board/list views) instead of at a field name level, and then including a “Merge columns” toggle for each field that would determine if it gets its own column, or is displayed in the same column as other databases with the same field. And if we could add a “per view” label for each column that could be independent from the actual field name on the database, now we’re cooking. 