So, I’ve worked with Baserow for a while and noticed that I absolutely can’t link rows of the same table to each other. It seems like a very rare use-case, but for some of you who used more classic task-management apps like ClickUp or Asana it will be TOTALLY usefull, if you want to re-create some classic attributes like “parent-child” hierarchy or “blocked by” relation and not creating/duplicating more tables just for it (which will be real headache without folders for tables). It’s not total killer feature, like my previous proposed feature, since I don’t know if it’s easy to implement, but it might be definitely worth to discuss.
1 Like
I changed your topic title so it is clear what the topic is about.
2 Likes
Hey @florian 
As a ClickUp user myself, I think I understand what you mean by “linking” rows of the same table to each other.
You’re trying to designate dependencies, correct? Like this:
1 Like
Yeah, without need to separate tables. It’s occasional need. Sure you can create single-select field with “blocked” status, but it’s not so flexible
Hello @florian! Good news, the development team is currently working on this feature, so you will be able to use it already in Baserow 1.11 
1 Like
Hello @florian! Great news: the feature ‘Link to the same table’ is now available in Baserow 
More about the recent updates you can read here: 1.10.2 release of Baserow // Baserow.
1 Like
It would be really nice to have a tree-view / hierarchy-view when a table has a foreign key to itself. For eg: if item X has children Y and Z:
Some UI ideas:
-
In Gallery view, the card for X itself can act like folders. This would be the easiest change, but we would have to provide a way to both “View X” v/s “Expand X”. And when X is expanded, some way to navigate back to parent level.
-
A two-pane view with hierarchy on the left and detail on the right. Similar to Windows’ file explorer view
- Fancy but a zoomable treemap. An example can be seen at https://learnawesome.org/#/map
Hi all,
I think this feature is very usefull but I wonder why it is not possible to create a related field when doing so.
If I want to create a father/son link for instance (in the same « people » table), this would be nice to have the field « father » automatically filled when I fill the « son » field.
Is this possible in an other way?
Thanks,
asan 
Hey @asan, I’m not sure I fully understand what you mean here. Could you please elaborate on this? 
To asans post:
if you have a parent-children connection, it needs two connected Fields, a 1-x and a 1-1. A parent can have multiple Children but the Child can have only a single parent record.
There would be nice to have a field trigger (not a record) for the Automations.
Hello @cskasler, sorry for the delay in responding to this.
We agree, this would be very useful, but we think that adapting the existing “rows updated” trigger would be more suitable. Here’s an issue to keep track of this feature.
Once this is implemented, you’ll have access to the previous/current values and can make more dynamic decisions in your workflows.
Cheers,
Peter Evans