Make the query builder reverse relationships icon more visible

Comments

6 comments

  • Avatar
    Soren Staun

    Yeah, I love the new icon, but it's kind of hard to spot reverse links now.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Kevin Fairs

    Chaps,  Good shout, but for what it's worth ( and I appreciate this is a bigger story and therefore likely to take longer to consider) how would the idea of not having to know direction of relationship in the query builder make sense?

    ie: you see the forward and reverse names in a single list of "relationships".

     - relies on you naming reverses well to make sense of the relationships, but I think that's just good practise anyhow.

     

    https://supportportal.moodinternational.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/360006801679-Agnosticism-towards-direction-of-relationship-links

    1
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Matthew Dodd

    Kev, they already are in a single list!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Karl Hertz

    @Matthew Dodd:

    Since I am the one with the referred in Kevs post, I'll add my perspective:

    I do not want to have to care about the direction of the relationship. The "direction" as a concept is fairly strange - when you have an object in focus, all relationships are "from" that object and "to" other objects. The only reason I currently need to care about the relationship direction is that the current implementation is prohibitive when you want to do certain things (e.g. editing reverse relationships in an info panel, for instance).

    Hence, my preference would be to do away completely with the notion of "forward/reverse relationships" so that

    1. We can do away with a lot of the counter intuitive ways in which we are currently forced to create relationships to be able to manipulate them over the webb.
    2. We do not care about it when creating queries
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Matthew Dodd

    Hi, I agree that in certain circumstances relationship direction isn't important but what about 'parent' as a relationship?

    We could potentially implement a manage themes option matching your requirement but we can't change them all to be undirected. There would be problems with permissions of the relationships as well as difficulty ensuring the single relationship rule was enforced.

    Another option would be to add a Query block to find relationships irrespective of direction (though I realise that only solves some of the problem)

    Matt.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Karl Hertz

    @Matt

     

    This is part of a bigger user story than relationship direction in query blocks - that part I am relatively unconcerned about (sorry guys). Also, I am not saying that there should not be any directions, just that I do not want to have to care about whether something is "reverse" or "forward" direction when I am designing things. From "where I stand", all things are direct "outward". My "parent" is my "parent", my "child" is my "child", my "driver for" is my "driver for". For my "parent" I am the "child". For my "child" I am the "parent" and for the thing I "driver for" the "driving force(s)". In all cases, this is directional, but relative to where I stand. That is not the problem. The problem is that I cannot do certain things dependent on "reverse/forward" relationship.

    I recognise that the "parent/child" relationship potentially is different, but to be honest, I don't think the difference in what I want to be able to do is all that big. If I move to a new parent, I want all the children to move. If I imlemented the same structure without the use of the tree hierarchy in MooD, this would still behave exactly as expected. The only potentially "big" difference is that things *need* a parent, so the behaviour of deleting an object would have to be considered. That said, I think most people would expect it to behave as it does today and delete all children...

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.