I’m adding my vote here. I’m assigning issues to user stories which are stored in the same table, but I can’t see which issues belong to a story.
Would be better to have Stories and Issues tables, not?
Often, issues and stories need to be prioritised against each other. Also, an issue can sometimes turn into a story when reviewing them with the team. For these reasons, I have them in one table.
Adding my voice to the masses too. This feature would be amazing for my lightweight CRM.
Really need this too!
Adding my vote too Notion has this.
I really need this too! In my “individual’s” tab I’m trying to link parents to children. No they can’t be separate tabs or it will screw up attendance and several other tabs. Please oh please allow this!! It’s literally doubling the workload
Thanks! That’s exactly what I needed. Still don’t know why it’s not a toggle in Airtable
Essential for program and technical management. We have lots of parent-child relationships, and “traceability” forward and backward is essential.
Would love to see this added. I’m building a glossary and need to cross-link related terms to each other. There is no parent/child. Terms are just “related” and adding the link from either term should make it visible in both.
Just adding a +1 from me, too. As plenty of others have mentioned, this is especially useful in tracking blocking issues.
Here’s a specific use case, as I use one base to track various software in my company and the integrations they provide via a same-table Linked Record field. So, if say I add an Integration between Airtable and Zapier, I ALWAYS want this to be a bi-directional linkage, so that Airtable also gets added to the Integrations field in the Zapier record.
Basically, I want a simple switch here akin to “Make Link Bidirectional” when I’m adding a Linked Record field within the same table.
I also need this. I’m trying to make an easy way to match students with their friends within groups. If I say Student 1 is friends with Student 2, I don’t want to have to say it again in the Student 2 record,.
+1 would love to see this. We’re structuring web applications and want to have “this section includes” then list the sub-sections. We then want each of the subsections to have “included in” automatically. There isn’t any inherent hierarchy, and we have modular inclusion, so there is no logical way to have some in one table and others in another.
Would also really like this!
We have the same case with my team, that’s why we also need the feature. To get around this, I have created a block which lists “child task/bug/issue” of a story, but I don’t think it might be sufficient.
We’re thinking about creating a linked “Tasks” table, where issues/bugs would be created AND one task per story. We would keep the functional details of the story in the “Stories” table and estimates etc in the “Tasks” table
I also need this ASAP. I have vendors, customers and jobs. When I create a job, I link the job to the Vendor and Customer. I need to have an automatically generated link from the customer and vendor back to the job. Currently I have to add all of the the back links manually.
I can’t believe reciprocal links on the same table isn’t core functionality, at least the ability to turn it on and off. It is there by default when linking to another table (ie, creates a reciprocal link on the other table).
What needs to happen is it needs to be a toggle option for both cases, same table, and different table. Many times I have needed this feature and have had to use a different tool, for same table reciprocal links. And many times I have not needed reciprocal links in the different linked table, and so I have many hidden fields hiding this information, and it’s even more annoying because each time you add a linked field for a new column, for example because you need a different condition, it adds the linked field an additional time for each additional column, instead of using the same one. So I might have the same column on a different table duplicating a reciprocal link multiple times, and then I have to hide all of those (Linked Table, Copy of Linked Table, Copy of Copy of Linked Table, etc). Terrible.
Please add this. It is basic functionality for this feature. People cannot make issue trackers with dependencies, for example, unless they add a separate ‘dependencies’ table, but many times you don’t want to expose these kind of simple relational ‘utility’ tables to the rest of your team, because it makes it harder to understand, complicates, and pollutes the workspace with too many non-interactive ‘utility’ tables that decrease usability and manageability. This solution is a hack. Yes, it’s what databases do on the back end, but if I wanted to work with a simple relational database, I’d do that and continue pretending to live in the 90s. This is Airtable, which should be a much more sophisticated front for a database, and that kind of stuff should be done in the background.
This is my vote to please make reciprocal-linking available as an option in the same table, and also make it optional across different tables.
Yes, totally agree with you. It is absolutely confounding how this is not a part of the product, especially considering that bidirectional links ALREADY EXIST in the rest of the product (when linking across multiple tables). This is core, basic functionality that all database systems have… except for Airtable.