Hi, currently a Lookup field cannot point to a URL-type field, does it?
My situation:
I have a Reference Docs Entity with a URL field
I want to create a Lookup field in Fund Fees Entity that point to URL field in Reference Docs Entity. But the URL field is not available to choose.
Just want to know if this is normal behavior?
Thanks
Looks like a bug, we’ll check it
Hello.
The reason url field is not available in the list of available lookup fields is that Fibery does not support collection of primitive fields at the moment.
For example you cannot create a field that will be an array of text values. You need to create several text fields instead. But in case of relation fields we do support collections. For example you can create Bugs relation field for UserStory type. And setup relation arity as one-to-many. So you can relate several bugs to one userstory.
In your case as Reference Docs field is a collection, so the result lookup field will be a collection itself. That is why only relations will be available in Field’s list.
As a workaround you may create a formula field like this:
[Reference Docs].Join([your url field], ",")
This will be a text field with all urls from related Reference Docs, separated by comma.
Thanks for taking time to explain the current expected behavior.
With your explanation, I recheck and saw what do you mean. I do have an array text in one cell of the Reference Docs as relation-type field.
I appreciate your workaround suggestion. It works. Though the url won’t be clickable since it’s a text field 
Actually, when you create the formula according to Sergey, you can choose for the result to be Text, Email or URL. If you choose URL, and if a Fund Fees entity only points to a single Recovery Docs entity, the result of the formula will be a single clickable URL 
Yes. understood.
With Sergey’s explanation, I found out that there is one field in Fund Fees type, currently pointing to 2 fields of Reference Docs type.
So I decide that it’s much simpler if I change the relation between Reference Docs type and Fund Fees type from m:n to 1:n. From this point, I can continue to use Lookup field as expected. Though, the tradeoff is that I have to change my underlying workflow logic between these 2 types.
I know there are several threads about the ability to create a collection of primitive fields. Is this a part of the roadmap?
There’s nothing planned in the short- to medium-term to support collections/arrays of primitives.
The current workaround (using an extra database) is not ideal, but at the moment, an improvement on this is lower priority than other features.
