Polymorphic relations. When creating relation, ability to have many Types from which to choose, and not just one Type

For the avoidance of doubt, I will state that I too did not intend my heart to indicate endorsement of all that was contained in Michael’s post.
I would also add that having worked in several countries, with people of varying backgrounds, who didn’t necessarily share a common native language, I have found it useful to follow the adage ‘assume positive intent’. From what I have seen on this forum, I believe that both Michael and B_Sp have good intentions.

1 Like

I do apologize, this was not intentional and I just wanted to emphasize that we do our best with transparency and our plans. It’s not ideal for sure.

1 Like

Michael, @Oshyan and @Chr1sG, Ok, I appreciate those comments. I’m not up for conflict so I’m ready to move on from this thread at this point. I do want to make the point though in closing this out that I really was surprised to be labelled a “complainer,” because the Fibery team encourages in multiple forums “unsweetened” and “unfiltered” feedback. I have thought about all I post in this forum, and I really think I am simply providing just that type of feedback - unsweetened. I back up most of my comments, especially the ones that may be construed as questioning how votes are counted, or pointing out large gaps in communicating about features, etc. I always thought the Fibery team would rather hear that type of feedback - based on the encouraging of ALL feedback, not just positive.

And all three of you will probably be glad to hear that although I had to give up my Fibery license for my team about a month ago, we ultimately determined Fibery had more to offer than it had shortcomings, and we are back on the paid plan and I’ll be adding further users soon. So all this diatribe aside, the bottom line is Fibery has held up for my Team’s use. I look forward to further feature development now that we’re back, and I will say that it was very good to hear that Polymorphic is still on the roadmap. It’s a true game-changer for us and we really can’t wait for it to come out.

Cheers.

3 Likes

Glad that you’re back on the Fibery train! I think we all benefit from your perspective.

Just my view on the discussion: if I can apply my translator from Eastern European, I believe Michael’s original statement, which was:

Not sure why you constantly complain about lack of transparency,

Basically says:

I don’t fully follow your consistent view that we lack transparency,

And indeed, the great thing about Eastern Europeans’ desire for unfiltered feedback is that it comes from a selfish place: they wish to give unfiltered feedback back to us :sweat_smile:

1 Like

Definitely glad to hear, although I certainly don’t want anyone using a product they’re not overall happy with. Hopefully Fibery is striking enough of that balance for now; it seems like that’s the case. I know there is no tool perfect for my needs, but so far Fibery is the best compromise. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: Hopefully it becomes less and less of a compromise over time! Now if only we could multiply the team and have each copy of them focus on different niches, like our own!

:laughing::100:

1 Like

I came across this need as well and wanted to describe a use case that would help. I am running my coordination meetings with our other orgs in Fibery at the moment. We create tasks that can be associated with many different levels of the data we have modeled. Products, Components, Campaigns, Initiatives, etc. However, in some contexts, having a relation to each is a bit overwhelming and complicated to select.

In a traditional task management system, you’d have a Tags field where you can apply one or many tags that are likely related to some structured concept. I could see where if we could include multiple Types as a source for a single relationship, then you could have your cake and eat it too.

The only other way I could see doing this is leveraging automation to keep a Tags Type in sync with all the Types you want to include in it, but that could get hard to manage.

3 Likes

Yes this is a great example, there are so many! Really hoping we get movement on Polymorphic soon!

1 Like

I really hope to see this soon, that would solve a whole bunch of complicated workaround in many areas of our organization.

3 Likes

Hey @Michael_DM, great to get your support on this!

Can you do me a favor and “heart” the original post? We are not sure, but as @Oshyan and I have wondered, there’s a chance that votes are only counted if the original post gets “hearts,” and not commentary within the actual request. This is a huge need for many here, so would like to make sure it’s getting all the points in the Fibery backlog that it can!

1 Like

Very excited for this future feature! It will help a lot.

2 Likes

Hey @mdubakov we have had flurry of new users requesting this, and the original post is up to 9 hearts in here Discourse, I don’t know of any other request here that has so much support - although I wish you guys would provide a way you could see that here in Discourse.

So any chance you guys have moved this up in your priority from the comment you made that I quoted a four months ago now? You are getting a lot of requests for this.

3 Likes

Thanks for your support and upvote of this!

Wanted to bump this, and @Oshyan brought it up in another thread before I had a chance to!

I’m going to leave my hastily written use case for Polymorphic in the other thread, but here’s a link to it for reference:

https://community.fibery.io/t/seeing-closed-entities-grayed-out-in-search-dialog/1298/10?u=b_sp

Ah yes, Polymorphic…funny I was thinking the last week how to add in some additional use case stuff to try to move that along. You’ll recall @mdubakov mentioned here that the work involved isn’t too complex:

In an effort to paraphrase what I wanted to explain as a much more detailed post, I am seeing an increased need for Polymorphic around creating hierarchical “grouping” style Apps. A situation where I would use an app and a series of child Types to group other Types, much like you’d use Folders in an old-school file system. The key is that in some cases you need just one level of hierarchy, in others say 4 or 5. Without Polymorphic, you have to always have the bottom level used , otherwise you would need to create extra relations to have something grouped on a higher level than the bottom.

So say you have something like this:

Function → Subfunction → Specialization → Area

This would be used in categorizing some work in a business, such as:

Marketing → SEO…in this case, you would not need to go down further to level 3 and 4, but you might have:

Marketing → Paid Campaigns → SEM → Google Ads…in this case the four levels are essential, as you could have another one here after “SEM” of “Facebook Ads” right?

With Polymorphic, I can choose at which level I relate to the entire App described here. That is just like if I’m creating a file folder in, say, Google Docs, for my Company functions. I can create folders on more than one level, and that works nicely.

Let’s hope Polymorphic continues to gain support - I’m glad to see it’s so popular now with Votes, although not sure if that’s giving it enough weight on the overall points scheme within the entire feedback system on the Fibery Roadmap!

2 Likes

Thank you for the comment, it indeed describes the value well. Some comments from me:

  1. With blocks we gave this feature more priority, since there are things that can’t be done without polymorphic relations
  2. I seriously underestimated effort, it is much harder to do and it’s a significant technical challenge.
  3. I hope we’ll do a spike in the next months to see how hard it is to implement.
3 Likes

I wanted to just let you know that I moved my vote here over to the request here:

Right now I need that above request more than Polymorphic, but it’s hard for me to quantify to what degree having said that…

I would really like to also point out that I don’t understand the 5 vote limitation. In particular for many of us veterans of the forum, it would be nice to be able to vote on more posts. I think Team Fibery could give us some good faith that we won’t go voting willy nilly. I think it’s odd and artificial that I have to remove a vote here because I don’t have enough.

I’d also like to pose the question to @mdubakov around this point, and @Oshyan eager to get your 2 cents too, that do you guys limit feedback in your back channel to just 5 votes per user? So if a user writes in a request a 6th time, how would you figure out where to remove the vote? I’m asking because you’ve generously shared your backlog and votes around features in the past, often showing that requests you get directly from users have far more “weight” in votes - and that’s how you showed them, with actual numerical value - than requests here in the forum. I recall that Polymorphic barely showed up in the chart here:

yet it’s the top category now that we have votes.

Hope that’s useful. Would really like more votes, because without them I think we have a skewed view of requests. And would really like to know if you impose this limit on the “internal” tracking of users. Thanks!

1 Like

I don’t see anything about Polymorphism in the chart at all.

A post was merged into an existing topic: Feedback management problems + now you can vote for missing use cases here :mega:

I accidentally posted a reply here, when I meant to move it to a new thread. And although there is mention of it above, I wanted to just make a new reply here to make sure @B_Sp saw it was a reply to this topic. Will be more careful about which thread I am replying to in the future. :joy:

It is there at least on the “List” view:

2 Likes

Would love to get an update here guys.

My team has come up on this again as we build out new areas with multiple levels. We are building some multi-level structures in a software system. Basically, three apps, One has 4 levels, the other 3. There structures are in turn connected to a couple of types of Dev work items in other apps: We have multiple story types (Technical, User) and related tasks and bugs.

As we build it out, we are seeing that in some cases, structures don’t all have four levels. There are items on level three, or two even, that are the end of that particular “tree.” The stories need to link to the item that is being built, though. So without Polymorphic, in order to have the relation of a story to all levels I need, I have to have three Types in the hierarchy relate to the Story Type in the other App. This is getting very unwieldy. Or, I have to artificially create items in my structures down to the bottom level of each app, even though in reality this may not reflect how my structure looks.

This is basically a repeated instance of multiple examples I already posted in this thread, but just wanted to add yet another use case here.

Glad to see we’re up to 10 votes here, really hoping for some movement on this soon!

2 Likes