Help

The Community will be temporarily unavailable starting on Friday February 28. We’ll be back as soon as we can! To learn more, check out our Announcements blog post.

Multiple records linked to a 'linked record' field, even when it's disallowed in the field option

Topic Labels: Base design Data
Solved
Jump to Solution
902 1
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Yongjoon_Kim
5 - Automation Enthusiast
5 - Automation Enthusiast

I have a linked record field in my table (Table A) where I disallowed the linking with multiple records from Table B. However, when I duplicate a record in Table B that is linked to a record in Table A, the linked record field in Table A gets 2 linked record, even though the linking with multiple records is still disallowed. How can I prevent this to happen?

1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
ScottWorld
18 - Pluto
18 - Pluto

Unfortunately, there is no way to prevent that from happening. Unfortunately, the “restriction” that you set on Table A is not really a restriction… it is simply a tiny little cosmetic obstacle to make it a little bit more difficult for a user who has access to Table A to add more than one linked record.

But ALL other parts of Airtable can bypass this restriction: automations can bypass it, the API can bypass it, the linked table can bypass it, etc.

As a workaround, you could make an interface where users ONLY have access to Table A with no access to Table B. That would be a cosmetic way of working around the problem.

See Solution in Thread

1 Reply 1
ScottWorld
18 - Pluto
18 - Pluto

Unfortunately, there is no way to prevent that from happening. Unfortunately, the “restriction” that you set on Table A is not really a restriction… it is simply a tiny little cosmetic obstacle to make it a little bit more difficult for a user who has access to Table A to add more than one linked record.

But ALL other parts of Airtable can bypass this restriction: automations can bypass it, the API can bypass it, the linked table can bypass it, etc.

As a workaround, you could make an interface where users ONLY have access to Table A with no access to Table B. That would be a cosmetic way of working around the problem.