Is there a specific reason you can’t exclude a certain unique ID in Do a search for? Other fields allow you to use the <> to exclude, but Unique ID defaults to =.
Am I missing some logic here, or has it simply not been implemented?
It’s because behind the scene searching by unique ID is very different from using other types of constraints.
Ok, I see, thanks for the quick reply.
From that I take it will not be implemented in the future? It’s no problem to do a simple workaround, I just want to confirm.
I believe you can use the “not equals” operator for unique IDs in a filter.
2 Likes
Didn’t know that, I’ll check it out. Thanks!
I’m grappling with this same issue in relation to using joining tables.
For example, let’s say I’m creating a datatype to hold users’ favorites of “Widgets”. When a user favorites a Widget, it creates a thing in the “Favorites” datatype. The thing in Favorites has a field that references the Widget the user has favorited.
Now when I’m showing a RG of Widgets and letting the user search and sort based on various attributes, I want the user to be able to only show ones that are favorited. Easiest way would be to write a search constraint as “unique id is in do a search for Favorites” and in the “do a search for Favorites” I have a nested search which searches for favorites created by the user.
This would be easy, but unfortunately unique id does not allow “is in” type stuff… only = or <>.
To get around this I’d have to duplicate the unique id as a separate field in my Widgets datatype (major pain on thousands of items) so that I can do this search!
Am I missing anything?