You have a single-select Country field, and a single-select City field, the city field options needs to be dynamically filtered by the Country value selected .
Thanks @Jeff for sharing your idea! I’ll discuss it with the team 
Hi, coming from Airtable and exploring Baserow for a migration. Loving Baserow so far, but cascading fields is a must for us to keep a fast worklfow and to prevent our staff from selecting the wrong option.
Similar to Jeff, I have a table with Car Parts which are specific to Car Models, which are specific to the Car Brand in the previous table. In Excel we create a Dependent Dropdown using the INDIRECT function for this.
Thank you for your feedback, @Jonathan_Doe. I’ll discuss this feature with the team and get back to you with an update.
Thank you Olga, a first version could just be to use both data in the same table.
I.e. the car parts table, would just have 3 columns:
- Brand
- Model/type
- Part Name
In the agregated view and forms you can only select car parts that match the brand and model/type that have been selected in prior column columns.
please add this, im facing the same issue needing dependent dropdown sort of feature for single, mutiple select in form that converted from grid
We’ll discuss this feature request with the team soon. I’ve noted that it’s highly awaited by the community. Thank you for your feedback, @fosts999 
Hey @Jonathan_Doe, @Jeff, @fosts999, we wanted to ask if there are some other tools that have this feature so we can check to see how it works practically? For now, we have some doubts as the UI for this feature will be very complex, but if we get some references, we might find a nice way to implement it.
To be honest I personally prefer the way it works in EXCEL with the INDIRECT function, where u just carefully select the source. In Excel’s case, the source would be a table header; so the options in the list have to match with the table header.
Video here:
I’ve played around with NoCodeDB and I like how they have set up conditions field. That would be a good way in terms of UI:
Thanks @Jonathan_Doe, we’ll check out both approaches! 
For the select options, instead of being manually added, is set by a lookup collection. Right now the lookup only works as a field type. If the lookup result can be as the options values of select type field, it will solve the cascading problem.
You can check the doc. Basically, instead of regular options, you choose reference option, there you set the condition.
Thanks @Jeff, we’ll take a look at the docs you’ve shared. 
@Jeff @Jonathan_Doe, we’ve decided to accept this feature request to introduce advanced options for the single select field. This will allow one single select field to depend on another, with the ability to choose dependencies per option.
Please note that while we will implement this feature, it is currently a low priority. As with all features, we may increase its priority if we receive more user requests for it.
@Jonathan_Doe regarding this example you’ve shared:
In case you didn’t know, Baserow has conditional logic functionality in the form view.
1 Like
Okay, I’ll chime in as “another user asking for this.”
I just ran into a situation where I’ve got a table for parts inventory, where I’d like to specify both “site” and “location within the site” separately.
I can see two possible ways to do this that would likely work for me:
- Primary field value causes the table to change row-specific visibility between multiple secondary fields
- Primary field value changes a filter on the list of options in a secondary field
Actually, in a more general sense, making it possible for any option-select field (single-select, multi-select, link to table) to support a filter formula on the options list could be a good generic solution to cover this situation and other use cases I might have elsewhere.
Hey @dkonigs, thanks for the input. I’ll discuss your idea about the option-select field supporting a filter formula with the team. I’ll get back with updates once it’s discussed!