Philipp Matuschka (MMB) 2/19/2015 11:49:53 AM
I have the same problem but have worked around it by making sure that every time I add a column, either directly or from a relationship, I reorder the columns so that all the columns rom a relationship are grouped together. I always make sure the reference field is the first one and then all the lookup fields below it. Obviously this only works for 1:m and not for m:m, but it does help a lot.
basenine 2/20/2015 12:53:42 AM
I set aside an hour yesterday to shift/reorder columns, basing it on how you've described here....
However, after quite a bit of shuffling around, when I pressed "Save", there was an error message describing some sort of conflict....and I lost the lot!
So I posted an Idea instead! 😀
Philipp Matuschka (MMB) 2/22/2015 11:04:33 AM
Yeah, I guess I had that problem once too, which is why I tend to only do a few at a time. In particular I make sure I do it every time I add a new column. I have to say that the discipline keeps me sane when I am later looking for a column.
Good luck with it.
basenine 2/22/2015 8:16:39 PM
I Can't see any reason why Manage Relations and Customise Columns could not be merged to form one area of setup. We can create Lookups, References and Summaries already from within the Customise Columns page.
Why not just have the Columns specific to the Table at the top of the Manage Relations page?
2 birds, one stone...problem solved!
basenine 2/22/2015 8:17:06 PM
Labs feature perhaps??
Slava Shinderov 2/23/2015 8:16:06 AM
@All we've experimented with such columns grouping internally but still not sure how it should look/work.
Please enable "Alternative Groupings for Columns" in Labs if you wish to preview it.
When it's enabled, columns are ordered alphabetically and divided into following categories: "Physical Columns", "Formula Columns", "References & Lookup Columns", "Selections & Summary Columns" and "System Columns".
basenine 2/23/2015 9:49:16 AM
Yes - I like it!
It's one step better than I would have done. I like the separation of Formula and standard columns. I like the preview of the formula too.
Thank you 😀
Rick Cogley 2/23/2015 3:13:32 PM
Thank you, very nice!
I wonder, could you possibly make the "formula" attribute available via the REST interface?
Philipp Matuschka (MMB) 2/24/2015 3:13:53 AM
Slava, it is certainly heading in the right direction. Two comments
1. Can you create separate groups for selections which are master-detail and many-to-many. There is a another idea open for this and I think this would be a good time to address it.
2. One of the things I liked about the old system was that the order of the columns on display was the same as the default order for the default view. In the new system this can still be seen after pressing the reorder button, but I find them quite hard to read in there. If some way could be found to improve this, that would be great. unfortunately I have no suggestions.
Philipp Matuschka (MMB) 2/24/2015 3:39:33 AM
Another possible feature, and this might apply to other areas in the system as well, would be to be able to click on a column header and get the data sorted by that column, just like in user mode. So for example in the Columns section, click on Name and then that section is sorted by Name.
Slava Shinderov 2/24/2015 3:58:23 AM
@Philipp it's not clear for me what's the reason to have separate section for one-to-many and many-to-many selections since there is no difference between them while creating summary columns or displaying details.
Regarding default columns order - we're thinking about removing "Reorder" button from columns completely and move ability to control default columns order to Views -> "Set the default view" page.
basenine 2/24/2015 4:07:01 AM
To weigh in on this, I think it'd be nice to know at a glance from the relation header that it's a one to one or a multi relation. Just a simple heading would be handy. At the moment, if we have two relations from the same table, we often need the multi relation summary to be used differently from a one to one
basenine 2/24/2015 4:08:32 AM
Prematurely pressed submit comment...
With knowing which relation type is which, it would save us having to view the content to determine its function
Philipp Matuschka (MMB) 2/24/2015 4:25:15 AM
I think your idea about moving the reorder to set the default views is a good one
The reason for wanting to differentiate between 1:m and m:m is for example when it comes to deleting a relationship. Deleting a 1:m is a much more "serious" event that deleting a n m:m. Deleting the 1:m implies deleting the revers m:1 relationship which could result in the loss of data, whereas deleting the m:m is "only" deleting summarised data. I often find myself having to go into the relationship to see the difference before deciding what to do next.
If making a different group is difficult, then even just displaying an additional column between the Action and the Summary Columns columns denoting either 1:m or m:m would be very helpful
Slava Shinderov 2/24/2015 5:48:03 AM
@All first of all, deletion of the relation do no result in a loss of data because reference column is not deleted.
When relation is deleted all lookup/summary columns related to this relation will be deleted as well - and that information is clearly displayed on delete relation confirmation page along with a type of relation.
basenine 2/24/2015 6:13:21 AM
Yes - it's not so much for deleting a relation in my case. It's to save the time going "into" the relation to establish whether that one is a one - one or a multi. The Summary columns are used differently in most cases (different match conditions, different views)
I actually have a few tables where I have two multi relation tables - one relation shows all the records in Table B whilst the other relation has a match condition so only shows specific records from Table B. The Summaries to Table A are different (Totals, for example).
Just a simple "at a Glance" indication would be handy.
Philipp Matuschka (MMB) 2/24/2015 7:10:27 AM
You are absolutely right, but at a very low effort, you could make life very much easier for us. Please consider it just on those merits.
basenine 4/30/2015 8:27:47 PM
I tell you - this new format really helps out....I love it 😀
basenine 2/22/2016 10:46:40 PM
Could we also group Columns by "Type" (sort them alphabetically)...ie Numeric, Text etc....
Or would that end up being a long, dis
Slava Shinderov 3/30/2016 8:31:43 AM