We have several types, where we need to be sure some fields are not empty. It would be great if we can mark fields as required OR create a validation rule if fields are empty (display an error message).
You could create a formula field that checks for empty fields, and returns a clear message:
if(IsEmpty(Name),"â Name needed â","")
You can then also create a view that lists the entities that need attention.
OR
You could create automation rule(s) that notifies the Created-by person (or Assigned-to person) if fields are empty (on creation and/or whenever there is an update)
1 Like
A bunch of related prior discussion of required fields, both in and outside the context of a âform viewâ:
Thanks @Oshyan and @Matt_Blais for the links, but yes, it should be acknowledged that this is something that is currently lacking 
3 Likes
@mdubakov @Chr1sG is that still actual? We need some validation rules to communicate with users. For instance, we have a view with tasks. Each task should be connected to the release version. The view has a filter to show only tasks with a release (otherwise we handle them in the Backlog view). A very usual situation when we create a task and forget to set a release. It will be very helpful to just mark fields as required on the layout. At least. We need to interact with users somehow when they click the save button.
Not really a solution, but a workaround would be to create a Rule that sets a default release date when the entity is created, so at least new entities would show up in your filtered view.
The release is a separate object in the space 
We have like Task->Release. Maybe it makes sense to replace an object with a dropdown menu for now. But still, itâs a problem because we canât validate fields.
Out of curiosity, what do you think the expected behaviour should be in the case that a user attempts to create/update an entity that does not meet the validation criteria?
Should the user be prevented from creating/saving the entity in that state, or should the deficiency be flagged to the user whilst not preventing them?
Given that Fibery doesnât have forms for submitting new/changed data, there isnât currently the possibility to prevent the data from being registered (e.g. with a greyed-out âSubmitâ button or similar)
1 Like
It should be a validation message to the user. Like all modern crms do.
1 Like
Yeah validation gets tricky when you have more than one required field on an entity without a defined âsubmitâ action - how do you know when all the fields are ready to be validated?
I think that data should be created/saved but the invalid fields marked as red or similar. And then at the top or bottom somewhere have a warning saying âX records do not meet validation criteria, click here to filter for themâ
2 Likes
Indeed, the user does not want to be bombarded with warnings whilst he/she is in the process of creating/updating the entity.
This concept could definitely work, and would be consistent with the existing colour-coding options.
In fact, if formulas were allowed in color coding, then it would become relatively simple to achieve something fairly useful, e.g. highlighting non-compliant entities in table/board/list views etc.
Highlighting specific fields (including when using entity view) would be a bit trickier though.
1 Like
I think field specific highlighting (that overrides color coding) would be a must for this type of validation, otherwise it would a) complicate/collide with existing color coding and b) be ambiguous to identify whatâs causing the failed validation
As a bonus, field specific highlighting (to indicate required columns, for example) would also allow for adding another feature of making it easier to differentiate between input and calculated columns 
3 Likes
Just wanted to jump in here and say that I am still eager for simply required fields, like âbusiness areaâ in a task if you want to make sure your team always has to label what they are doing. With todayâs release of [DONE] Form View and required fields, I realized that I donât think that actually covers the simple feature of having required fields on entities, although that is mentioned in the title of that release. So wanted to get in here and vote for simply the ability to make certain fields required. Thanks!
3 Likes
I think that the feature of required fields is very important and should not be left up to a âworkaroundâ.
2 Likes
Yes, this is another feature Iâm still hoping for!
1 Like
Iâm also chiming in here with a +1. We have pretty much the same use case as @Eugene_Vabishchevich, trying to ensure every task is associated to a release, client, etc, etc
I think the best you can do is to create a Rule that fires on entity creation and checks for any missing info, and creates a notification (or other action) for an entity that needs attention.
A different approach I have used is a âvalidation viewâ for Task entities (sorting with most-recently-created first), using color-coding rules to highlight Tasks that have missing/invalid info or need attention of some kind.
I have multiple colorizing rules to highlight different problems with new Tasks:
- no assignee
- not linked to a Project
- no due date specified
- etc.
But I do need to remember to check this view regularly to see what needs fixing! 
So maybe I need a Rule to generate a reminder notification daily 
1 Like