Sort or group list by database (by entity type)

Ideas & Features
1

Currently its not possible to sort or group a list by entity type.

image

Use case:

I have Hubs, Projects, Tasks, Notes, Pages which all use a single select field called “Priority”.
I have filtered the list by priority ‘High’
This results in a mixed list of entity types. I want to have them either sorted or grouped by enity type.

1 Like
2

A workaround would be:
For grouping by database:

  1. Create a new database with a list of all database names (the database names database).
  2. Then, for each of these databases you can create a relationship to that database name.
  3. Then create a list view with the database names database as first level, and other databases as second level.

For sorting by database the same approach can be applied.

Its a complex workaround for what would be expected out of the box.

1 Like
3

To support my case:

chrome_BmYzQZWdib
chrome_BmYzQZWdib974×1029 35.8 KB

Problems with the current Entity View

One main reason why I find this important, is because of the current problems with the entity view:

  1. it forces to display all selected fields even if they are empty.
  2. Many fields results in a massive visual clutter of fields, and less overview.

Limitations of multiple databases in a relationship field view

As a workaround, I use one database ‘Content’ that is related to all other databases, which is the placeholder field that includes all relations of that database.

  • Benefit: one single field shows all relations of all related databases, and not empty fields needed.
  • Drawback 1: the results cannot be sorted or grouped by database.
  • Drawback 2: the view fields become many, and very messy when displayed.

What to expect from the upcoming Entity View?

I remember that in a recent announcement the upcoming entity view innovation would allow for display of different databases with their fields more clearly in the same relationship field view. I’m not sure what to expect from that, but I hope that it contributes to a unified single field that could replace multiple separate fields.
I think that one of the main new objectives of Fibery is increasing insight through relations. If entities behave more flexible, at least in fields, that would contribute to that.

Workaround: a generic database plus related ‘Extension’ databases

I actually also use a generic entity type ‘Page’ and field ‘Type’ which gives much more flexibility, but limits the choice of fields. Any additional fields need to be attached through extra databases (e.g. specific Type databases with dedicated fields). There is however the problem that:

  1. lookup fields cannnot be edited in the enity view.
  2. related entities cannot be embedded as entity view (transclusion).

Sorry, this post is a mix of issues but they are related.