Showing ideas with label formulas and calculated fields.
Show all ideas
Status:
New Ideas
Submitted on
‎Aug 02, 2024
02:10 PM
Submitted by
dood
on
‎Aug 02, 2024
02:10 PM
![4 - Data Explorer 4 - Data Explorer](/html/@4E8E151294069C305549EE5038974E9B/rank_icons/Rank-DataExplorer.png)
What is the proposed idea/solution? ... How does is solve the user problems? ... How was this validated? ... Who is the target audience? ...
... View more
Status:
New Ideas
Submitted on
‎Jul 30, 2024
07:21 PM
Submitted by
kuovonne
on
‎Jul 30, 2024
07:21 PM
![18 - Pluto 18 - Pluto](/html/@EB3D12BA2A0BCA205CD1572C5D621AAA/rank_icons/Rank-Pluto.png)
What is the proposed idea/solution? Formula fields have recently gained the ability to be formatted as single selects and checkboxes. I propose that formula fields also have the ability to be formatted as users and rich text. How does is solve the user problems? User fields are very useful for filtering records in interfaces, especially for filtering on the "current user". However, currently, the filter only works on actual user fields, but sometimes the user should be a calculated value. For example, a record might have a different assignee, depending on the stage of the record. It would be useful to have a formula field calculate the current assignee so that the interface page can then show all of the records where the user is a current assignee. For rich text fields, I currently have a formula field that serves as a template to build paragraphs in markdown, combined with an automation that copies the formula result to a rich text field. If the formula field could be formatted directly as rich text, I would not need the helper rich text field or the automation. This would also reduce issues with determining when the automation needs to be re-triggered. How was this validated? Based on my experience with Airtable, I think these features would be useful. Who is the target audience? ...
... View more
Status:
New Ideas
Submitted on
‎Jul 24, 2024
06:25 AM
Submitted by
Davidt
on
‎Jul 24, 2024
06:25 AM
![6 - Interface Innovator 6 - Interface Innovator](/html/@781FA7B006C69ED0612A0090F8465157/rank_icons/Rank-InterfaceInnovator.png)
Hi there! Am I right in thinking that the "last changed" field type shows the timestamp when all or specific fields were last changed and if a change operation on such a field is UNDONE (by pressing Ctrl+Z) this will not get reflected. I find this unfortunate as it introduces wrong information, because like that, the time of last change provided by the last changed field will be wrong...
... View more
Status:
New Ideas
Submitted on
‎Jul 21, 2024
05:11 PM
Submitted by
ClarifyThis
on
‎Jul 21, 2024
05:11 PM
![6 - Interface Innovator 6 - Interface Innovator](/html/@781FA7B006C69ED0612A0090F8465157/rank_icons/Rank-InterfaceInnovator.png)
For lookup fields, it would be nice to have the option to cascade / inherit field descriptions from the table the data is coming from. This helps nudge us towards single source of truth by: increasing the readability and intuitiveness of our bases and interfaces ('descriptions everywhere'); reducing the burden of managing that description (no longer have to cascade the description everywhere it is referenced); and eliminating the need for users to 'go somewhere else' to get their info (e.g. 'start a draft record in the other form so the info pops up', or a flat user manual that is decoupled from the application) It will need to be optional / opt-in so it doesn't break the behaviours of existing bases. This will also bring us closer to [the broader idea of] distinctly managing our bases' data dictionary as part of the core offering.
... View more
Status:
New Ideas
Submitted on
‎Jun 28, 2024
01:41 PM
Submitted by
alexagora
on
‎Jun 28, 2024
01:41 PM
![6 - Interface Innovator 6 - Interface Innovator](/html/@781FA7B006C69ED0612A0090F8465157/rank_icons/Rank-InterfaceInnovator.png)
What is the proposed idea/solution? If I link records in TableA to records in TableB via a "Link to another record" field, I get a column in each table reflecting the link. So I can look at the row in Table B and see which records from Table A link to it. However, as of now, when linking to another record in the same table I can only see on Record A that it links to Record B and Record C I link to -- there is no corresponding field on Record B or Record C that shows the records that link to it. Thus, I cannot run a rollup or look on the fields linking to me. How does is solve the user problems? This is valuable for modelling two-way markets. For example, I buy a lot of commodity in Record A. I sell some of the lot in Record B and the rest in Record C, it would be extremely time-saving to be able to link Records B + C each to A, as "from lot A", then to have a field on A which shows the sold quantity (Rollup of quantity from linked Records B + C). To accomplish the same today, you have to enter Record B + C, then open Record A for editing and put the link there -- greatly slowing data entry. Who is the target audience? Anyone linking records within the same table who wants to be able to calculate aggregates. this seems to be a common enough question on the forums to have elicited some long frustrated chains.
... View more
Status:
New Ideas
Submitted on
‎Jun 14, 2024
05:54 AM
Submitted by
Sean_Murphy1
on
‎Jun 14, 2024
05:54 AM
![7 - App Architect 7 - App Architect](/html/@A5FC3CBAAE60D538F9A953E47A560077/rank_icons/Rank-AppArchitect.png)
What is the proposed idea/solution? The Duration field now supports days in addition to hours and minutes. However, the formatting options for the Formula field, when the output is formatted as a date, do not accommodate this change. As a result, I cannot use DATETIME_DIFF() to calculate a duration of many days without resorting to the same steps required before the Duration field supported days. How does it solve the user problems? By allowing the Duration field to support days, users can more easily track and calculate longer periods of time directly within the field. This streamlines the process and reduces the need for complex workarounds previously necessary to handle durations extending beyond hours and minutes. How was this validated? The issue was identified and validated during the development and testing of an interface. Testing scenarios where users attempted to calculate durations of many days highlighted the lack of appropriate formatting in the Formula field as a significant pain point. Who is the target audience? The target audience includes users who need to track and calculate extended periods, such as project managers, event planners, and anyone involved in long-term scheduling or time tracking. These users will benefit from more straightforward duration calculations and improved usability of the Duration field.
... View more
Status:
New Ideas
Submitted on
‎May 16, 2024
06:50 AM
Submitted by
DougL
on
‎May 16, 2024
06:50 AM
![5 - Automation Enthusiast 5 - Automation Enthusiast](/html/@8E0586A35C6D0D07EA6A610CF7AEF6BF/rank_icons/Rank-AutomationEnthusiast.png)
When you add a Checkbox field to a table, you can choose a style graphic used when the box is checked. You can choose from many graphics like a Check, an X, a Star, a Heart, etc. When you add a Function field to a table that returns numbers, you have the option to format the numbers. However, If the function returns a Boolean, the field will display a 1 or 0. (I know you can add code to the function to display graphics, but that shouldn’t be necessary.) It would be nice to see a checkbox-style format for Boolean values returned from Function fields. Having the option would make the UI consistent when displaying Boolean values and performing calculations on these fields.
... View more
Status:
New Ideas
Submitted on
‎Apr 17, 2024
10:51 AM
Submitted by
Mike_Shaw1
on
‎Apr 17, 2024
10:51 AM
![6 - Interface Innovator 6 - Interface Innovator](/html/@781FA7B006C69ED0612A0090F8465157/rank_icons/Rank-InterfaceInnovator.png)
What is the proposed idea/solution? My suggestion is that you make all desktop data views and interfaces phone fields function just like the mobile app so that if you click on it you have the option to choose Call or Text (tel/sms). Workaround is to at least make this work with the Button field, right now the tel: or sms: links do not work with the button in the data views or interfaces, they are just kind greyed out and don't work. How does is solve the user problems? Most business run on computers not mobile phones. The option to just click a phone # and then choose call or text is an invaluable time saving option. Why do you have a phone number field that does not act like a phone number on a desktop from a data view or interface when it works like this in the airtable mobile app?! Is not one of the most common uses of airtable include CRM /customer data? How can I have a customer contact crm type database/interface that does not have native clickable phone numbers on a desktop PC when the mobile app has it built in? All webpages do this now, all CRMs do this now. How was this validated? There isn't even a good work around for this! adding a button with a URL tel: type link does not even work. Who is the target audience? Everyone who uses artable to manage cutomers...
... View more
Status:
New Ideas
Submitted on
‎Apr 07, 2024
12:07 PM
Submitted by
alexagora
on
‎Apr 07, 2024
12:07 PM
![6 - Interface Innovator 6 - Interface Innovator](/html/@781FA7B006C69ED0612A0090F8465157/rank_icons/Rank-InterfaceInnovator.png)
When building a filter for the sake of linking a row to another row in the same table, it would be helpful to eliminate the accidental selection of the same row. For example, we are trying to match buy and sell transactions to each other inside the same table. We we build the filter to limit which rows are shown in the selector list, we filter on things like "SKU = This SKU" via dynamic data to pull in the current record's SKU. However, often the selection criteria causes the record we are editing to show in the quick select list, leading to easy mistakes. We'd like to add a filter to say something like "RecordID != This RecordID" but the recordID is an internal/API field only it seems. I suspect I could assign an autoID field, but those are dynamic and we see a warning about dynamic fields not matching correctly when trying that. To be able to do it on the recordID without a synthetic extra step would be an improvement anyway.
... View more
Status:
New Ideas
Submitted on
‎Apr 05, 2024
03:16 AM
Submitted by
hubkei
on
‎Apr 05, 2024
03:16 AM
![5 - Automation Enthusiast 5 - Automation Enthusiast](/html/@8E0586A35C6D0D07EA6A610CF7AEF6BF/rank_icons/Rank-AutomationEnthusiast.png)
What is the proposed idea/solution? An extra Action for the Button Field inside a table (not in the interface), where we can select "Run an Automation" How does is solve the user problems? At the moment there is no direct way to run a simple automation from a button field. it only works on buttons in interfaces. How was this validated? The press of the button should also "pass" the record ID to the automation, so any automation ran can use the record ID to specifically work on a record. Who is the target audience? This is useful for everybody who wants to use the button field in day to day simple operations.
... View more