Skip to Main Content
Feature Request FR-2203
Product Area Page Components
Status OPEN

81 Voters

Filter columns using cascading LOV in interactive grid

g.aselmeyer Public
· Nov 16 2021

Idea Summary
In interactive grid columns using cascading LOV user are only allowed to hide this column, but they also need to filter or sort.

Use Case
If user shall plan the work of staff not all of them will be able to do every job. Therefore the user have to choise the name of an employee and then get a list of jobs, depending on his knowledge (cascading LOV). But after filling in the user wants to filter all menber of staff who have the same job this day.

If you say turn around the dependency and choise a job and afterwards get a list of all workers, who are able to do this, than you get a cascading LOV of staff members. But now the user is not able to filter a person to have a look, which responsibilities are assigned to.

This idea is open.

Comments

Comments

  • alastair.steele OP 1.9 years ago

    please add these features back in the next IG pass - not being able to filter/sort on CLOV columns is a major inconvenience to users

  • andrea galizzi OP 8 months ago

    A partial workaround is:

    1. Add a new display/query only column in the grid (varchar2 data type) with the display value of the LOV with parent(s) column.
    2. Give to this new column an appropriate name. For example: if the LOV column is “customer”, the name of the new column could be “customer (for search)”.
    3. Open the grid, hide the “… (for search)” column and save the report (so the new column is hidden by default). Repeat this step for every primary/alternative report.

    This way, the filter is not available when the users click on the column, but it works when they use the search bar (or the sort options in the “actions” menu).

  • martijn OP 4 months ago

    @alastair.steele I agree whole heartedly. It is a weird issue, although maybe heard to fix, seeing as this idea has been on the list since 2021!

  • martijn OP 4 months ago

    @andrea galizzi Thank you for the workaround. It's not a pretty solution, but it definitely works, so I'll be using it! Thanks again!