I want to create an variable based input to filter the interactive table but I don’t find the input for User Type.
Hi @yuhuan.pu, thanks for the suggestion. I can see how this is a little confusing, and this is great feedback for us.
There’s a way to do this, and rather than using an input that’s tied directly to the USER data type, you can use single selects tied to variable of the USER type.
First, create a filter on your interactive table that looks for all entries that match the user field your looking for. Here, I selected an approval field, and created an new SELECTED USER variable.
Then, create a single-select input.
You’ll want to do two things here:
1.) Make sure that your first data source (the variable this input is attached to) is the same Selected User variable you used in your filter.
2.) Set the second data source to “All Users”. If your first data source is set to a user variable, this option should populate automatically. If there’s a sub-set you’re interested in, table queries and aggregations are your best bet.
Let me know if this helps!
Hello John:
This is a good way to filter people
But I have nearly 700 people. It will take a long time to find it in the Single Selection.
@yuhuan.pu, yea, that’s a lot of users!
Maybe splitting the difference: Once you drop-down the single select menu, you can use the keyboard to take you directly to the user you’re interested in. Try typing once you’ve opened it.
If that doesn’t work: Looking at the structure of your table, have you considered making the filter over the “Name” field and not the user field? Might get you closer to the desired result.
In the meantime, I’m going to share this back with the team that works on how Tulip handles user objects. I think they’d like to see this.
I have a similar issue and it is an often discussed one. It would be great to have access zu User-Parameters in the User-Field Table. Like Name, eMail, Role…
That would make it possible to search users with those information and use these parameters in app as well.
@yuhuan.pu
However, you could use an aggregation on all Users in this table, to reduce the amount in the singe select on only available users.
(Query with no filter, Aggregation “UniqueValues” on “User” column.
The downside is, that the users are then in the same order as in the table, since you can not order them by neme in the Query!
@John the typing in the single select works but is not handy at all. You need to type relatively quick and you dont see your typing. It also matters if you know the first or the last name, since you need to know the beginning of the user name. You cant reorder the list by name, when the source is the table iself (Aggregation to limit the users to available ones).
@thorsten.langner, thanks for sharing some context as to why that workaround falls short. I completely agree with you that the real solution here is to improve how Tulip handles the USER data type. I like your suggestion for making user metadata available in the user table, too. My experience is that a lot of folks want that information displayed next to users, but don’t often update the user table to contain it.
To the thread: if there are any other improvements you’d like to see to how Tulip handles the User type, comment below. I’ll share these back with the PMs.
1 Like
Hi there, any update on this? We are also looking for a way to efficiently find particular users in the long list of theoretical users…