Add filter option "is in list" with a subslect of another table/view

[JeffJohnVol]

On filter options, it would be useful if there was an option on the comparitor to be "in list" and "not in list". After either of these are selected, you can reference another record/view and a field to represent that list.

As an example, lets say there is a table of "Teachers" and some of them have a "Teacher Type" field of "Art","History","Math", etc.  A view might be created to have a list of just Art Teachers ("Teacher Type" is "Art").  It would be nice if on another table that references Teachers that are interested in art projects, there could be a condition that says "Teacher" "is in list"  Table:Teachers; View "Art Teachers".

And yes, I realize that this can probably be done by a mixture of linked tables and adding additional conditions within the view, but this methodology allows people to break down their views into simpler organizational blocks to be used in different places. If I have a need to get Art Teachers in 10 other views, I don't want to have to add all the extra table links and conditions for all 10, if I can just do the "in list" and leave the Art Teacher designation in one view.

Hopefully this makes sense.

Thanks.

[Alexey_Gusev]

Hi,

add all the extra table links and conditions for all 10 - actually that's how database works. You have a table of teachers, so in every other table when you reference teachers in a field, you can link their table. And select 'limit record selection to a view' in a link field settings. Note that limit is just for manual selection. It doesn't controlled by the table all the time. If you change teacher type, link will stay.
Like this, but instead of using ID, you can set primary field as formula TRIM( {First Name}&'  '&{Last Name} )

[JeffJohnVol]

Hi. I understand that there's a way to do it (the hard way) and I understand how databases work... I have probably been using databases longer than most of the airtable developers have been alive. 🙂 (assuming they were born after 1986).

You may not understand the utility of what I suggest, but I promise you, if that feature existed, it would be highly leveraged, especially those of us that come from the "hardcore" database world. 🙂

Thank you.

Jeff