June 11, 2026 / Allow certain non-Admins to manage Users, Filter search results by People fields

[mdubakov]

In this new modest release everyone should find something useful. We hope.

Permissions: Allow certain non-Admins to manage Users

Here at Fibery, we are big fans of democratizing power. Previously, we’ve allowed Admins to delegate the ability to manage Spaces, set up automations, and configure access to empower local Architects.

Now we do the same for user management:

Select individuals Users and entire Groups who will be able to invite new people as well as manage the existing user base. As an Admin, you don’t have to be the bottleneck anymore.

This feature is available on Pro and Enterprise plans. Check out the user guide for other details.

Search: Filter search results by People fields

Now you can filter search results by Created By and other People fields. When a database has several People fields, filter is applied to all of them. It will help you to find entities faster in some situations.

MCP Server and Fibery AI: Support files and images in rich-text

Now Fibery AI and MCP Server can retrieve images and files embedded into rich text fields and documents. Supported files formats are: PNG, JPEG, GIF, WebP, PDF, CSV, Markdown, Plain Text (up to 20 MB each).

It means Fibery AI or any other AI agent will understand content of entities better and provide better answers.

Whiteboard: Export entire board as image

You can now export an entire Fibery whiteboard as a single image via Export Board as PNG action, not just what’s visible in your current viewport. The export captures all elements on the board, except embeds. Smaller boards export at full size, while very large boards are scaled down automatically to keep the image sharp and the file easy to handle.

Mobile: Native file actions

When you open, share, save, or interact with a file, you’ll now see the standard iOS or Android menu instead of a custom one.

The system file menu is now available in File fields with attachments, Images inside rich text fields, AI chat file uploads, Lightbox preview actions.

Note: You need to update the mobile client for these actions to appear.

Fixed Bugs

• Highlights: When drop-down value for a highlight, the menu closes, no value is set
• Permissions:
  • Аuto-sharing is enabled for People field after install Space template if it was disabled in original Space
  • Editor template is selected by default if enable auto-access for Groups
  • Member template is selected in auto-sharing in installed Space if another template was selected in original Space
• Reports: Loader in Reports seems to be broken
• Pricing, Billing & Account: Current Plan button blends into the background
• Sorting in Views: Some issues with Empty values top/down selector for read-only users
• Documents / Rich Text: Collapsed H3 headers get expanded on leaving entity and returning back

[timothy]

Yay to all - thank you!

[bear]

Great updates. Thanks!

[Tommy_Hedley]

@mdubakov

Mobile: Native file actions

These improvements are great, but PDFs and other non-previewable files are still bugged on iOS. The files can now be downloaded through the context menu, but if I accidentally tap on a file, I still get the following error:

Mobile file permissions error

I am getting a permissions error when attempting to download any files using the mobile app on iOS. My phone and app are up to date and I am using an Admin account.

I’ve also wondered if we might eventually see an in-app PDF viewer? I really appreciate the team working on the mobile experience! For a construction use case, good mobile features and support are a game changer.

[myg_ge]

Mine

• MCP Server and Fibery AI: Support files and images in rich-text
• Whiteboard: Export entire board as image
• Mobile: Native file actions

Thank you.

[alex]

In version 1.1.3 if you tap a file that can’t be previewed, it will automatically open the iOS Files save dialog so you can save it to your device. We’re also working on support for previewing more file types, not just images.

[interr0bangr]

@mdubakov

Search: Filter search results by People fields

What’s it going to take to prioritize the contextually filtering of one relation field’s “search results” by another relation field’s value within forms? and providing ways to display an entity’s fields (besides name) in a relation field’s “search results”?

I know this “filter by people on global searches” feature and those other two I mentioned are most likely apples and oranges under the hood, but on the surface they all seem like “filtered search results” improvements and it sucks seeing requests that have a decent amount of votes and have been discussed as pain points for many years get seemingly ignored while others that don’t even seem to have formal feature request get implemented first.

If you can’t tell, we’re absolutely desperate for better searching/filtering options so we can efficiently create new entities and easily link existing entities together. For a platform that’s all about the “fibers” that connect and relate data to help businesses operate better, it feels like not enough effort is put towards addressing very prominent gaps in some extremely common “create and relate” use cases.

[Chr1sG]

@interr0bangr

it sucks seeing requests that have a decent amount of votes and have been discussed as pain points for many years get seemingly ignored while others that don’t even seem to have formal feature request get implemented first.

Sorry that it appears like we are not prioritising based on feedback, but there is usually another dimension to deciding what to tackle next.
Each feature requires dev(s) with specific skills/competencies, and if, for example, context filtering in forms requires a core-specialised developer, and these devs are working on user permissions, we can’t really focus on that feature until they become available. But we might be able to implement a lesser-requested feature (filtering search results) which only requires skills of a search-specialised dev.
We definitely aren’t ignoring the demand, but not every feature sits in the same ‘queue’.

[myg_ge]

(post deleted by author)

[myg_ge]

@Chr1sG

@interr0bangr

it sucks seeing requests that have a decent amount of votes and have been discussed as pain points for many years get seemingly ignored while others that don’t even seem to have formal feature request get implemented first.

Sorry that it appears like we are not prioritising based on feedback, but there is usually another dimension to deciding what to tackle next.
Each feature requires dev(s) with specific skills/competencies, and if, for example, context filtering in forms requires a core-specialised developer, and these devs are working on user permissions, we can’t really focus on that feature until they become available. But we might be able to implement a lesser-requested feature (filtering search results) which only requires skills of a search-specialised dev.
We definitely aren’t ignoring the demand, but not every feature sits in the same ‘queue’.

I suspect the keyword here is “for many years”

[Jonathan1]

@mdubakov

Permissions: Allow certain non-Admins to manage Users

Perhaps I’m wrong but I would have preferred to see this feature as a new value in the Role field of Users: “Users Manager”, between “Admin” and “Member”. I don’t really think I will use it one day.

[Chr1sG]

@myg_ge

I suspect the keyword here is “for many years”

Well, we have to make strategic decisions for how we devote resources
The two features that were mentioned have received 8 votes and 4 votes in the last 3 and 2 years respectively.
In that time, we have release mobile apps for Fibery, multiple entity views, Gantt charts with dependency tracking, and entity level permissions, amongst other things. Each of these had many more votes, and we had customers telling us they were significant pain points.*
I’m not saying this to suggest that the needs mentioned don’t exist, but just trying to give some context for why a feature might remain in the backlog for some time.

[Chr1sG]

@Jonathan1

I would have preferred to see this feature as a new value in the Role field of Users: “Users Manager”, between “Admin” and “Member”. I don’t really think I will use it one day.

We tend to develop Fibery to be as flexible and customisable as reasonably possible. Adding another level to user roles specifically for ‘user management’ might seem initially like a good idea, but as more features/functionality gets added, the demand for ‘off-the-shelf’ access levels via user roles might grow. Providing every possible combination is less sustainable than allowing them to be added/removed/combined as discrete options which can be combined with existing functions (e.g. user groups)

[timothy]

Totally agreed!

[Jonathan1]

@Chr1sG

We tend to develop Fibery to be as flexible and customisable as reasonably possible. Adding another level to user roles specifically for ‘user management’ might seem initially like a good idea, but as more features/functionality gets added, the demand for ‘off-the-shelf’ access levels via user roles might grow. Providing every possible combination is less sustainable than allowing them to be added/removed/combined as discrete functions which can be combined with existing functions (e.g. user groups)

Thanks for the feedback. I can understand and I agree that using groups to delegate things instead of user per user is the right way. However, in Fibery context, this creates an area of ​​confusion: users with the right to manage the user database must have a Fibery license. Therefore, a user can be in the “User Management” group but not have a license.

[Chr1sG]

@Jonathan1

users with the right to manage the user database must have a Fibery license. Therefore, a user can be in the “User Management” group but not have a license.

Do you mean that you think it should be possible to allow users to manage other users (and not necessarily do other things) without requiring them to have a paid licence?

[Tommy_Hedley]

@alex

We’re also working on support for previewing more file types, not just images.

Awesome! Looking forward to being able to see pdfs on mobile!

[Jonathan1]

@Chr1sG

Do you mean that you think it should be possible to allow users to manage other users (and not necessarily do other things) without requiring them to have a paid licence?

No, I mean that a User can have an Observer role and belong to the “Users Management” group. There can be a confusion because the User should be Member. So in the point of view of an architect, he will need to add the User on the right group and check if he have the right role. If for some reason the architect forget to check the role of the User, this can become a point of frustration or misunderstanding regarding this feature, I think. This is a detail but if you add this one with another one and another one, new architects will be lost and current ones will need to think about this detail if the situation occurs.

Perhaps a warning should be added when one or more Users on the “Users Management” group does not have the correct role.

Not sure if I explained myself correctly.

[Chr1sG]

@Jonathan1

Not sure if I explained myself correctly.

Yeah, your point makes sense.

(as a side note, this can happen with other similar situations, e.g. a user shares an entity with a group, assuming that the group members can be editors, not realising that some group members are limited to commenting only due to their user role)