Requests of Rules Functionality

✨ Feature Requests
1

Let’s compile all the requests for how Rules can improve on the new record layout in one place.

I figure it’s better here as a feature request than to overrun the comments on the initial announcement post on Rules from back in July of 2025 🆕 Introducing: Rules

I came looking whether a specific feature request already existed, but I couldn’t find the one I needed.
I know however that I’m guilty of forgetting something that’s already been shared in this community, even when I was the one to request it originally.

Then this recent post from @dirk_s made me start thinking about other ideas that have come up in past threads, but maybe slipped away without officially being logged.

As I’ve been using more apps with the new record layout recently, I’ve started thinking of many more ways I wish I could use Rules in the new record, like Dirk’s hidden if NOT empty.

I figured I’d post a few here in this one thread, and invite others to add their ideas so that our friends at Tape don’t have to go digging for feedback when they are ready to add features to the rules.

2

For starters - Hidden If Empty with Rules.
@Leo confirmed this one is coming soon: New record experience: now in public beta 🎉 - #25 by Leo

3

Next up: Hidden if NOT Empty.

As described by @dirk_s

“hidden if not empty” would be as useful as “hidden if empty”.

In processes there are certain fields, which only need to be set once and never be changed again. You don’t even want to see it anymore. If needed at all, I could still show the hidden field again, same way I show “hidden if empty” fields manually.

Again, Leo did confirm it’s on the radar: New record experience: now in public beta 🎉 - #27 by Leo

4

Hide/Display based on mathematical validation.

Example: We have some number fields that split out what % of a sale gets attributed to up to three different users. We would love a big red warning label to appear on the page if the sum of number field 1 + number field 2 + number field 3 does not equal 100%

Because rules are available on things like text blocks, title fields, and even images, this would be fairly simple to utilize, but we’d like to build the rule based on our math rather than requiring a separate calculation field to do math, and then a rule based on that field.

5

Hide/Display based on conditions other than select type fields.

Ap present, there is a known limitation that rule conditions are

based on select fields (single select, multi-select, and status)

Several times we’ve had an idea for a rule and wanted to set it based on things like single line text or other value settings, but it’s not yet possible

6

I should add, the Tape team did already share this ‘vision’ of potential applications for rules that might be released in the future:

7

Show a Field or Section only IF a certain field meets specified minimum requirements.

We have noticed several examples where show/hide if empty (or if not empty) isn’t adequate.
Certain fields would work better if we could set more specific rules such as a minimum number of characters in a text entry field.

Eg. Think of a sales pipeline field where a salesperson should only be able to click a trigger button or progress to the next stage if they have adequately answered certain questions about the sales prospect. We’ve had situations where fields were set as required or even attempted to be hidden if empty sections. Those can be gamed if the user just puts one or two useless characters in the field, and then the automation accepts it’s not empty and proceeds.
It would be more valuable if the rule for seeing the next field or having the next trigger button available could only happen if the question text box had some minimum number of characters typed or something similar to that.

3 Likes
8

Oh man, Carson, I feel you on this with all of my soul. I’m also guilty of typing in a period just so I can get to the save button :grimacing:

A few of the conditions I can think of off the top of my head that would be really useful would be the following:

- >, <, = [number]
- min/max character(s)
- =, ≠, contains [exact match]

This would completely change the way Tape works moving forward.

2 Likes
9

Hey @CarsonRedCliffLabs and @1F2NS,

Thank you so much for the feedback. I can really, really understand this :100:

I am also very excited to roll out the missing filters for Rules and to add more options here. Especially around validation use cases, but also more general filters and triggers, for example based on certain users, the current state of a record, field values, and similar things.

We will definitely focus on Rules again once we have finished and released the missing fields for the new Record. Right now, the fields are unfortunately still the biggest blocker for most users to fully switch to the new Record. Once that is done, we can continue improving Rules step by step and add more features that will then work properly across all fields and make the new Record better and better.

So as a positive signal: nothing here has been forgotten or permanently removed. We are just fully focused on the fields at the moment.

Thanks again for sharing this. It is really helpful.

Best regards and have a great day,
Leo

2 Likes