Previously, if table fields from two different levels had the same name, they would combine into the same column, despite being different field types. For example if Level 1 had a formula field called “Update” and Level 2 had a date field called “Update” they were in the same column.
Looking at my tables now, everything has split apart. Is this a permanent change or a bug?
We have the same problem. I reported it via Intercom and it was changed because of technical complexity. If a lot of people experience problems, they might fix it.
So I’m curious who else runs into this issue!
It was a change made because we started adding different ways to display a field value (e.g. a number field could be shown as a progress bar instead of the standard input box). Because different field types can have different display options, it makes it difficult to show them in the same column.
Of course, if you can wrangle them to be the same type, then the issue goes away.
What are the types of the Update field in each case?
I’ve had many different field type combinations. But the most common for us is combining anything on a lower level with a text formula field on an upper level to act as a summary.
Same problem here. This was one of my favorite features (in lieu of polymorphism or the ability to create relations to multiple different entity types) as it allowed us to simplify display of different entities in the same place.
Our use case:
In our projects, we hire both individual subcontracters (Person-type) and vendors (Company-type) to fill in certain roles in projects. Sometimes, they are hired for similar things, but the “Role” they fill has overlaps, but isn’t the same. So the Person-type has a “Role or Type” field with a multi-select, while the Company-type has a “Role or Type” field with a multi-select, but they are different multi-selects with different options. Previously, these were displayed in the same column (elegant), but now they are side-by-side (inconvenient)