Show custom or view name for relations in Entity view

Ideas & Features
1

Sometimes a relational view with a filter can have a contextual meaning and simply the Database name does not correctly describe it.
Also, is just shows the relation DB pretty small, so just generally the Entity view feels a bit “unclear”. I think it would look better if the titles would be larger.

image
image1045×164 26.6 KB

Another example:

image
image580×218 5.18 KB

Here, what I actually want to show are the actual spendings (meaning “Bookings”, grouped to Categories and Reporting Periods). As I already show the relation view of Booking, I cannot show that view and group by Reporting Period but I have to do it the other way. Now I had to rename the relation to “Actuals per Reporting Period” which is just factually wrong, because the relation is of course just “Reporting Period”, but if I want the title to make sense, I have to rename the field…

2

If database A is related to database B (one-to-many) then entity view for A1 (a specific entity in db A) will have a relation field (collection).
Within this relation field, there can be multiple relation views.
By default the relation view is a list view (of B type entities) context filtered based on the relation.
However, there are actually no constraints on what a relation view can show, or on whether or not a context filter is applied.

Taking a concrete example, a Task might have a relation to the User database, where the field is called ‘Assignees’. However, you could choose to create an additional relation view for this field which shows entities from the Meeting database, with no context filter applied, limited to Meetings within the last month. Maybe this relation view is called ‘Recent Meetings’.

This would mean that the Task entity view would have a relation field, called Assignees (which is not the name of the User db) with a default relation view (called List) and a secondary relation view (called Recent Meetings).

This results in the problem you are encountering, that the field name (which may or may not be the plural name of the linked database for this field) can potentially have no semantic connection to the entities actually being shown.

Other than making the relation view name wider (to address the issue in the first image) I am not sure what else could be done to prevent this potential contradiction. I don’t think it would make sense to hide the field name, and I don’t think we want to limit the possibilities with relation views.

3

Well the problem would be completely solved if the view name e.g. Recent Meetings would actually be noticeably visible and not so small and cut off for no apparent reason when there is space next to it.

So I guess my suggestion boils down to:

  1. View name should not be cut off (I’d even consider this a bug
  2. Active View names could be significantly larger / more visible on a first glance, giving the user an easier time to understand what he’s looking at especially for entities with multiple relation fields (collections) showing.
2 Likes