It would be awesome to be able to group by a field, but sort by another field. For example, group by name but sort by last modified date.
This is possible, you can sort your groups, but the sorting within the groups is still controlled by the collection sort/order settings
That’s the thing, I don’t want to sort my groups. I would like to sort by last modified but still group by a specific field. So the group field name wouldn’t be sorting
How would that work practically?
The order of the groups would depend on the value of the first item in the group?
2 practical ways of going about it for a line item and invoice example would be:
- allowing for other parent fields aside from the key to sort a grouping. for example a list of line items would be grouped by invoice (ex Invoice #223), but sorted by invoice modified date, so the most recently modified would always be at the top, regardless of the invoice key field.
- Allow for child fields to sort the group. using same example but sorting by the line item modified date. let’s say you edit the line item qty for 1 line item, then that parent invoice would be at the top of the list, and the line items would be sorted within the group by the modified date.
Bumping this - as I have a similar use case. I think what @showcal_rob meant is that the sorting of the groups themselves should be able to be defined by another field, not just the sorting of the records within the group.
For example, I have my records grouped by {Type} and I can only define the ORDER of those groups A-Z or Z-A. But if each {Type} also has a {Priority} (say “1-High”, “2-Med”, “3-Low”), then I’d want the “1-High” Type to be the top group - even though the name isn’t alphabetically first/last.
Hope that makes sense - another similar feature that would be useful would be the ability to define the name of “No Value” groups. I have contacts grouped by Department, but rather than having a “No Value” group - I’d like to be able to call that group “No Department Defined” or something like that.
In that case @jesse you should use a Single Option Select field, because we respect the order of the options
Wouldn’t that solve it?
Fair enough - in that case it would.
A more complex example would be grouping by a linked field. My A/P chart of accounts consists of a Name, Category (also a linked field), and Account# for coding expenses. I need to group line items in a budget by the Category of the linked Account Codes. However, there is a standard accounting practice for our industry that defines the order those categories should appear.
Grouping by linked account Category A-Z or Z-A will always be the wrong order
As a workaround, I’ve adjusted the name of the Chart of Accounts record categories with a manual numbering system to force the order. But now I have to have those numbers displayed in the grouping - and in cases where a certain category is not used for a project, the numbers look awkward. See image attached.
-
The robust solution would be to have more options than just A-Z/Z-A sorting with defining grouping (have the same level of customization that the record sorting option has)
-
Take this:
-
And replace the Group sorting options with something like this:
-
-
A simpler solution (maybe?) would actually be to define the logic of the grouping AND also be able to define what field is displayed in the group header.
- In this example I would select Group by: {Account} > {Field with Manual Numbering} as I have today, but choose a new Group Title Field: {Account} > {Category} > {Name}
- So I would use the same workaround for the logic, but override what is displayed in the group title
Obviously this is niche, and the workarounds are doing fine. This isn’t even a feature that Airtable has. So definitely what I would call a low-priority quality of life improvement.
However, a more pressing need is being able to override what is displayed for the “No Value” group as I mentioned before.